The definition of treason. That first shot they fired is literal. The South for all intents and purposes, has already seceded and is a real and imminent threat against the US.

The likely outcome did not need any push by the Republicans. So, what did they stand to gain by throwing fuel on the fire?

The UAW should show commercials all over the US, but especially the South to let Americans know that Republicans are actively working to have Americans lose jobs and to deepen the recession. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be an exaggeration.

The GOP is an election-fighting machine. Period. It's all they do, it's all they can do, it's all they're interested in. We've seen their interest and commitment to actual governing for the last eight years.

And unions play a vital role -- against the GOP, usually -- in elections. Therefore they must be destroyed.

Little else drives GOP education 'policy', for that matter.

The definition of treason. That first shot they fired is literal. The South Republicans for all intents and purposes, has have already seceded and is are a real and imminent threat against the US.

Fixed. Prejudice is ugly in all its forms.

Love it. GOP cravenly plays political games with millions of blue collar jobs because of their hatred of organized labor. Um, did they not just try to win an election pretending that they care about working class people like Joe the Plumber? What about Joe the autoworker? Jan the auto parts dealer? They really don't seem to realize how this is playing outside of their union-hating idealogical circles-- save the white collar workers, screw the blue collar workers! Also, what happened to their nationalistic tendencies?

Taking a step back from everything, I really can't get over how surreal it is that Bush is working WITh the dems on all of this. Mysteriously, Bush has enough perspective on all of this to care about these jobs and recognize how bad it would be for the global economy if we let them all fail right now. Is this Bush's attempt to improve his legacy?

DeMint:

"It is no coincidence that the healthy automakers in the United States are located in 'right-to-work' states and are not unionized by the UAW," he said.

Does he even recognized all those companies are foreign owned? How about some ads saying the R's are willing to sell out your job and our country to foreign companies?

Apparently strike tags don't work here.

It's all part of the Republican tax-cutting plan. If you don't have a job, you don't have any income. If you don't have any income, you don't have to pay tazes. People will be grateful you cut their taxes. That is, after all, the only valid policy goal.

Republican = Jobkiller

Chris Matthews sat, ever so clueless, yesterday, and pondered why this appeared to be a fight between the Rust Belt and the South.

The object is to, not only break the unions and their voting strength, but, have Detroit plants moved to the South and operate as non-union.

The irony by the Southern RepuG Senators is they will demand their respective states and counties to provide taxpayer subsidies for the building of the plants. No, they can't give away any money to Northern Unions, but, they will give away huge sums of Southern taxpayer funding to the newly created facilities.

Vote in National Healthcare and break the back of the RepuGnant Party.

Similar to Double Talk trying to block the latest tanker program for the USAF. No more money for building tankers in the State of Washington, or even in Whicita. No, let the State of Alabama provide tax incentives for the Euros to build their new plant there. Of course, most building will done in France and Italy, but, at least it takes money away from Democratic voting union workers in Everett and Seattle.

Um, did they not just try to win an election pretending that they care about working class people like Joe the Plumber

Joe the non-union Plumber -- ok.
Joe the 'independent contractor' Plumber -- ok.
Joe the freelance, under the table carpenter-electrician-plumber-sheetrock guy -- ok.

The JtP thing was all about turning the working class on itself.

Because a contingent workforce, a nervous workforce, an insecure workforce is a tractable workforce, and poses no real opposition to a plutocracy.

Class warfare. The party of Herbert Hoover. States Rights.

All of these tags and more. And yet it is not hard to find poor working class rubes to nod and agree that tax cuts for the rich, God, guns and gays, socialism, Islamofacism and Liberalism, are the things Rethuglicans will save us from.

If a rising tide lifts all boats, this financial tsunami will surely drown us all. The R's will throw us an anchor so we won't drift too far from the Good Ship Boot-Strap.

Not to piss in the punchbowl, but isn't it a little bit possible that republicans genuinely see the unreasonably high pay and restrictive work rules that the unions have obtained as a big part of the problem Detroit faces? In this context, isn't 'union busting' a good faith attempt to fix the problem, rather than political payback? Obviously you might disagree with this position, but to assume that it's pure payback seems pretty narrow-minded.

Of course this is union-busting. Labor repression has been core to the the economic and resulting social culture of the Southern Slave states for over 2 centuries, and the Republican Party has become the Southern Party.

Prior to the Civil War the South had most of the richest men in the U.S. They were planters who made their wealth by exporting the most extensively traded commodity in international trade - cotton. But cotton was a difficult crop to grow, one that could not be grown highly profitably if the landowner paid his laborers what it took to keep them on the job. The only way to become a wealthy planter was to use slave labor who worked for subsistence and who were motivated by the threat of pain. Any labor productivity above the cost of labor subsistence was added to the plantation owner's wealth.

With the availability of Black slaves, non-slave labor was always competing with a labor force that worked for subsistence. The planters used the 3/5's clause in the Constitution to build Congressional seniority and in many ways dominate the American federal government. Since slavery was the basis of their wealth they always tried to use the Federal government to protect and expand their institutional solution to the labor problems of the plantations.

After the Civil War cotton was never as profitable because the slave force that had made it so was gone. Sharecroppers took their place, and landowners as the wealthiest Southerners were replaced by the owners of the company store, but the wealth that slave-run plantations just wasn't there. What was there, though, was to play off the Black and White labor forces against each other to prevent the organization of labor and hold down wages. The states with Right-To-Work Laws are predominantly the states of the old Slave States. This is the culture of the Southern States!

Labor exists to be exploited and the police are used as union-breakers.

Now that the Republican Party has largely reduced itself to a party of the Old South, and it is rabidly attempting to enforce the anti-union Southern attitudes on the nation just as the plantation slave-owners attempted to force slavery on the rest of America.

Digby describes it well as she discusses the "Two Tribes of America."

Anti-labor attitudes are core to the American Southern states. Expect to see even self-destructive rabid efforts to destroy unions out of the Southern Republican Party for the foreseeable future. Like so many thing conservative, this is not negotiable with them. This is who they are.

And no, this is not a unitary attitude of all Southerners. This is a core cultural trait of the Southern elites. It changes, but only slowly, even glacially. And the changes will be seen least in the wealthiest Southerners. I suspect that anti-unionism is replacing racism as the touchstone cultural attitude in the Southern elites. It in many ways takes the place of Racism in the overall structure of the Southern elite culture. This is not an idea I feel certain of, however.

Shag: what unreasonably high pay, considering the deep cuts the UAW already agreed to and the astronomical compensation top management pays itself?

If $50k/year for a skilled worker is "astronomical", then who's going to be able to buy a car?

Not to piss in the punchbowl, but isn't it a little bit possible that republicans genuinely see the unreasonably high pay and restrictive work rules that the unions have obtained as a big part of the problem Detroit faces?

No. Go over to John Cole's site (www.balloon-juice.com) and see the graph he has posted. The "high pay" that the union workers get relative to their foreign competitors amounts to $3 per hour on average (numbers listed are for Ford - GM and Chrysler are similar). That's it. The big difference between the foreign auto maker cost and the Big Three cost are LEGACY costs - $16 per hour for pensions and health care for retired workers vs. the $3 per hour that the foreign companies are spending (because they're newer companies, don't have a legion of retirees, and came into the US after 401k's and other such pension plans came into existence).

As for the "restrictive work rules" - the UAW already bargained most of those away. They have always been less restrictive than the companies and the Republicans liked to demagogue, but the UAW has already compromised on them.

And speaking of bargaining away - the UAW had already worked with the big three to take over that onerous pension system a few years down the road, and to cut wages a few years down the road (that $3 an hour bump over foreign factories is getting cut already).

So, no this is purely an attack on a political enemy by the Southern Republicans. Reasonable Republicans - like Sen. George Voinivich - understand this. Don't be fooled by the anti-union rhetoric.

Unreasonably high pay is generally found in the finance industry, or in the executive offices. Not on a manufacturing line or shop floor.

Another few points, Shag -

I did not hear any mention of executive & white collar pay becoming "competitive" at any point. Compare the executive compensation of the U.S. automakers to their Japanese counterparts.

I did not hear of any "date certain" to solve the excessive dealership problem, either.

Executives have made the decisions to build huge vehicles, neglect reliability & ignore all innovation, not the unions. They made the decisions to not fund their retirees benefits, not the unions.

So when you ignore all of that, it makes the rest of us think:

Don't try to bullshit us, OK?

@ Shag

I'd like to believe that too except that Republicans are hell bent on providing and disseminating disinformation about union pay. And where's the Republican outrage about GM and Ford CEO's making obscene money? Ford's Mulally has made $50 million since becoming CEO in 2006. Somehow I don't think you'll hear too much coming from Republicans about how we need to limit CEO compensation.

No, no. Best for them to lay this mess at the foot of unionized labor. This isn't about solutions for Republicans. It's about politics.

My understanding is that the workers agreed to take the pay cut in 2011. The GOP wanted them to take it RIGHT NOW. I don't know about you, but if my pay was going to be cut, I'd be in a lot better shape with some time to prepare, get my bills in order, adjust my spending, move to cheaper digs if necessary. For a lot of families, I'd guess that $3 an hour might be the difference between the family keeping their house or losing it. Just what we need right now, more foreclosures.

is this the republican idea of country first? you can be pro or anti union philosophically. you can oppose the bailout because you think it's the wrong thing to do. but the economy is a disaster and to oppose this bill because of a grudge against the uaw is selfish, dangerous, childish and as someone earlier noted damn near treasonous.

Obviously you might disagree with this position, but to assume that it's pure payback seems pretty narrow-minded.
Posted by: Shag

Seems a quite straightforward admission of partisan payback:

"1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."

Not sure where the confusion is coming from?

I guess it's gang up on Shag day.

Did you notice the memo was distributed before they met with the Dems and union leaders. They were already planning to use the union as a scapegoat. That's not negotiating in good faith, and that is why unions exist!

Look, it's simple: the Republican Party is a criminal organization dedicated to the destruction of the United States. They belong in prison, every damn one of them.

The Repiglican Party is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to what is left of our country. They should simply be exterminated like the vermin that they are .. for the common good.

"These GOP lawmakers, Voinovich said, "think they have no use for labor."

Oh, they have use for labor all right; just as long as it works for Wal-Mart wages.

And, Alex Koppelman and Mike Madden report some myths, and ignore some facts, about the right-to-work states, the UAW inviting the Japanese Big Three to America, etc., which I have already covered. As a Green voter, as I e-mailed them, I’m not covering for Southern GOP Senators. But, let’s be honest about the degree the UAW’s problems are self-inflicted.

By how much did those Republican Senators want to reduce the pay at the top brackets of the companies? Did they expect dividends to take a cut as well? Just wondering.

One of the things the Rs negelct is that the foreign companies, even though in RTW states, still pay higher wages than surrounding businesses because of a better employee-relations culture - am I right?

The Republicans want to end the Unions so more money can end up in theRepublicans pockets.

The unions are needed to keep the greedy Republicans from the continuence of exploiting American workers. Seems like the Southern Republican owners continue to treat their employees of color or white with slave mentatlity.

"First shot"? Were they born in 2003?

Speaking of things that are clear signs that the GOP Senators weren't dealing in good faith, not only was there no demand for a "date certain" to close dealerships, or cut executive pay, there was not even a peep about the subsidies provided by southern states to those foreign car companies that are paying the "reasonable" wages.

If they were serious about reaching a solution to the long-term success of the Detroit automakers, I'd think discussion of the subsidies given their competitors would be important.

They are going after the whole middle class. This has been going on since Reagan. The unions are just a handy pre-demonized target.

Neil B., if the unions ceased to exist, the competitive wages paid by foreign auto manufactures will begin to plummet. Benefits and hours will be cut. Without the threat of the UAW, companies will have no reason to pay well or to keep their word regarding benefits or work rules.
Biggerbox, great points about the subsidies provided to foreign auto makers by SC., Tenn., KY., AL. and other states.

There is this persistant notion people have that the living wages, 40 hour weeks, overtime, safety rules, and other benefits magically appeared in America through the goodly nature of business owners. Far from it. All of those things are part of US law and culture because Unions fought for them--and occasionally died for them--over the last century and a half. Sweatshops, starvation wages, and poisonous work environments still exist in this country, just like in the Third World, everywhere intrepid business owners can hide them from the Unions and the Federal laws that exist only because of Union political influence.

NonyNony - thanks for that link. Wow, John Cole AND Ben Stein are defending a union? We truly live in Bizarro-world.

So, no this is purely an attack on a political enemy by the Southern Republicans.

If you read the LA Times article, over the years, the Big Three political money has gone mostly to Republicans (except for 2008).. since big business are normally allies of Republicans, I'm not sure if I buy the argument that Reps are seeking to destroy a political enemy by sacrificing a political ally (GM). Unions have done a lot of good, but they've gotten some unhealthy concessions too.. I don't want to bailout GM purely to save unions. GM has been in denial for 5 years.. it's time for them to pay the price.

That's why it's important to find out all you can about a candidate.

The GOP has a history of destruction.

Jack Abramoff, Grassroots Interactive, Silver Springs MD - defrauded millions from major corporations for lobbying.

John Cornyn, former Texas Atty Gen, now senator, closed a competing casino.

Roy Blunt, Rep, moved donations between DeLay & his own political groups. Blunt wrote letters on behalf of Abramoff.

Now, if they closed a competing gambling casino - what do you think will happen to UAW.

John McCain said Social Security was a disgrace - yet he receives a monthly social security check of $1938.00

John McCain was involved in the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal, this caused Savings & Loans to fail. However, witnesses had car explosions like out of the movies.

But, the most important thing, they scared the American public about muslims, yet, they are going behind our backs and making deals.

Think Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Iraq......I'd bet, if they were able to make deals with Iran, they would.

I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that the party of Taft-Hartley would be blatantly anti-union.

probably the best argument for UAW, Big 3 -

"this is our home, sometimes people get lost, but eventually find its way home. The foreign auto companies, this is not their home. If they can no longer do business here, where are they going to go? That would be home."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/13factory.html

An interesting article in the NYT on the sit-in strike in the Republic Windows plant in Chicago, which reads like a feel-good Christmas story, with its almost-happy ending.

Granted, the chances of the workers getting *what was owed them by law* went up considerably once the sit-in became the focus of media attention (the appearances of both Obama and yes, even the doomed Blago, must have helped, too); if the media wasn't looking, they would have, in all likelihood, ended up in jail for trespass. But, even so... I think the overwhelming lesson here is that, *without the union*, all of those workers would have been bare butt to the ice, while the management would have been sitting pretty -- in Iowa, where they reincorporated after doing their midnight flit -- instead of filing for bankruptcy.

I'm not at all surprised that the "Party of the rich and for the rich" hates unions with an abiding passion and will continue to do its utmost to be rid of that roadblock to their greed and lack of regard for the human sources of their wealth.

Exlibra,

I can believe it! I can guarantee some of this has to do with the Madoff fraud case. I'm willing to bet this guy had some state and local government pension money.

Here in Orange County Cali, the county supervisor caused the county to file bankruptcy due to his investing in derivatives.

My motto, I watch and invest my own money. I don't need someone telling me to invest in something, especially something I don't understand - good way to get ripped off.

Example, women fall prey to car repair ripoff more than men (in general), because they usually know less about cars than men.

the mortgage bubble, people didn't understand Arms, or interest only loans. First of all, if it cost the bank 3-5% interest, why would they give it to you for free or a discount. Banks make money from interest and fees. Besides, if you get a fixed rate, the first 15-20 is pretty much interest only, meaning more interest than principal.

With adjustable loans, no one told the borrower about the index, margin, cap.....

Well duh.

Q: Why no accountability required for funds given to securities firms, insurance firms, and banks?

A. They're not union shops.

Nony is exactly right – much of the "labor cost" difference is legacy costs due to many more retirees, and under different terms.

If this were a management issue, you'd hear them moaning about "stranded costs."

SocraticGadfly,

It has nothing to due with labor costs, retirees, or any of the sort.

It has to do with greed. These corporations owe the U.S. billions of dollars in tax revenues. This is another ponzi scheme, or shell game the corporations and GOP are playing against the American people.

These corporations are using offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes on profits and revenues.

They are using a accounting practice called Transfer Pricing- it lets companies buy & sell services using the offshore subsidiaries and set prices themselves.

You know how sometimes a government office will pay $1000 for a toilet?

The toilet may actually really cost $40.00, but the government will pay $1000

The corporations are keeping profits offshore with threats that if they can't pay 5.25% taxes, they won't bring the money here to create jobs, fund pensions.

To blame unions is something the GOP would like for you to believe. You can't hear things the GOP says and run with it thinking everyone will believe it.

I heard a fellow blastin the unions at the gym friday morning "Let em all go bankrupt and shred those union contracts!"

It's the ignorance of history, the Santayana syndrome that is dooming America. Here was a guy who I percieved to be white irish catholic and blue collar but probably retired bitching about unions as if they were the evil ones. A man who if my perceptions were at all close to reality has benefitted the most from unionization. I'm in the north, had this guy heard of bread and roses? does he think the 40 hour work week appeared out of thin air and that child labor only exist(ed) in far away places like China and Bangladesh?

Face it, Americans are stupid. It will be the study for the ages how a society with as much wealth and opportunity as ours affords could have at it's core such a deep ignorance and denial of its' own history. But that's a human folly not solely and American one I suppose.

Grinning Cat,

I agree with you 100%.

People don't realize that it's the union that made it possible for people to go on maternity leave or sick leave and be able to come back to their jobs.

It's the unions that prevent the WalMarts from making you work overtime without overtime pay.

It's the union that make sure you get paid your deserved wages - say they hired you to make $15.00 an hour, they can't turn around and pay you $10.00 an hour.

But, as I said, the corporations are stashing money offshore, thereby avoiding taxes they legally owe.

These corporations have gotten used to paying China, Pakistan, India sweatshop wages. And it they could do the same here, that's what they would do.

I've said numerous times, a private contractor in Iraq, Triple Canopy, is hiring mercenaries from Peru at a pay rate of $30 USD a day. When the mercenary gets hurt from an IED, they send him home. He does receive some sort of treatment, but, left disabled forever. These Peruvians are very angry at America.

Think about it, for the type of work they are doing for $30.00 a day, that's less than the state and federal minimum wages for the U.S.

BTW, I visited the website/blog for some of the GOPers-

www.gopusa.com

Some of the comments left there, seems some of the people are dumber than dumb-dumb.

I left the site because I wondered how, with Boy George's program of "No Child Left Behind," it's soooo many!