It was not much more than a year ago that Ford said the turnaround was going well and no more cuts would be necessary. That's about the time when they paid their new CEO over $39 million for four months of work. Nice. So now they're asking for everyone else to tighten their belts? Sounds like the executive board has quite a few spare belts they could hand out.
So to summarize, the clueless management team that brought the company to where it is today, relying heavily on gas-guzzlers and automobiles that nobody wants is now telling the workers that because management failed, it's the unions that have a problem. No word on how many million Ford CEO Mulally is going to give up since times are tough.
It's understandable that different unions came out for different Democratic candidates. I have no complaint with that. What does bother me, however, is that some unions, like AFSCME, are continuing to spend money on Hillary's now-failed campaign. As Joe wrote the other day:
[A]t this point, putting egos aside (which is very difficult to do in politics), seems like every dollar spent on behalf of Hillary Clinton's failed campaign is not only a waste, it's money that can't be spent to defeat McCain.
It's money that can't be spent against McCain, it's money that can't be spent against every anti-union candidate in the fall. Greg Sargent reports that this is exactly what's happening. AFSCME is spending large sums of money to support Hillary in the remaining races, even though it's over, she lost.
AFSCME is going to put "real money" behind independent expenditures for ads on Hillary's behalf in remaining Democratic primary states, a union official just confirmed to me.
Why? To make Hillary feel better? We're supposed to be playing politics here, not therapy. And in AFSCME's case it's even weirder. AFSCME headquarters is spending money for Hillary in Oregon:
"We are going to be knocking on doors and making phone calls and doing direct mail and contacting our members in Kentucky and Oregon and Puerto Rico," the official said.
AFSCME plans to mail to its members and participate in other get-out-the-vote activities both for Obama and for Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.
So you have AFSCME national spending money in Oregon for Hillary, and AFSCME Oregon spending money in Oregon for Obama. That's beyond idiotic, and an incredible waste of union members' money. If Hillary weren't still in this race wasting everyone's time and money, both AFSCME's could potentially save their money for the fall. This is yet another reason why Hillary's ongoing temper tantrum she calls a campaign comes with a serious cost.
When anyone says "oh, let the poor woman have her four weeks to come to terms with her grief," they're ignoring the very real fact that Hillary is forcing Obama and third parties like AFSCME and EMILY's List to waste money that they could be using against McCain, and other Republicans, in the fall. I have no problem with AFSCME picking sides (though this is the second time that AFSCME's leader, Gerald McEntee, has picked a loser - he was for Dean in 2004). I do have a problem with AFSCME jeopardizing races in the fall.
The stereotype of unions and union workers is unfair and misleading, for a variety of reasons. Ezra has a great story -- and analysis -- about an elevator conversation (always good times!) that's highly instructive and also pretty entertaining. Go read.
I canceled my cable TV earlier this year. I was watching too much junk, Comcast made me want to jab a fork in my eye, and, most importantly, I realized that there were really only four shows I really liked . . . and I could get them all online. All legally, all on the network websites, all free. The commercials are shorter, I can watch them anywhere there's an internet connection (waiting in an airport, e.g.), and, best of all, I can choose when. And stuff I don't watch when it comes out, I get on DVD later.
It's hard to imagine this not being the model for future television consumption for many, many people. I was therefore surprised to learn that television writers aren't compensated *at all* for some of this (internet) and egregiously undercompensated for the rest (DVDs). This is an excellent rundown of the strike details. I hope the union wins (and not just because I don't know if I can handle life without The Office).
Sarkozy "The American" ran on a campaign to change France. The deficit in France is about the same as in the US even without an expensive war. The initial small strikes were only the first play in a long match with each sides seeing how the other would react. Now it's the real thing, with trains and metros shut down and power shortages coming via other unions. Students are in the queue and I'm sure there are a few other groups waiting in the wings.
The issue is whether to bring the rail worker unions into the norm with the rest of the population. Currently many can retire at 50 or 55 whereas those outside of the union are typically thrown on the street at that age with little hope of ever finding employment to finish their working life. One key argument that the government workers make is that their jobs are boring and they accept lower pay and better retirement plans. Hmm, how about everyone else that makes somewhat more money (though not drastically more) but has less and less job security?
Sarkozy still enjoys high general approval numbers though people are starting to doubt his capabilities to implement the change he spoke about in the campaign. The next few weeks will either break him, much as it did to Chirac when faced with strikes, or make him much more powerful. It's hard to say if either outcome is good for the country, but we shall know more soon.
