For my last blog post, I commented on a post by fellow classmate Shmuel Nosrati. His blog can be found at this URL: http://shmuelnosrati1.blogspot.com/2012/12/blogging-social-difference-in-la-week-10.html
Your post was an intriguing one that was critiquing Neo-liberal policies, especially in regard to the city of Van Nuys and the GM plant that used to be there, but also touches on some larger points in how these policies work on a macro scale. While well intentioned, I think you're post over simplifies a lot of the decisions that make these policies a reality, although the consequences are undeniably unfortunate.
Beginning with the specific case of the GM plant at Van Nuys, the closure came at a time when GM was bleeding money everyday and suffering from its in ability to stay competitive with other car companies. The plant, along with many others in the US throughout the 80s and into the 90s were notorious for producing cars with serious malfunctions and problems that built a poor reputation. One report was filed by a customer that was later tracked to a car built in the Van Nuys plant, complaining his hazard lights would turn on one wiper blade and open the trunk, while his A/C turned to the third knob would suddenly switch to heat. These were isolated instances, but systematic problems of manufacturing by American employees who were more concerned with getting their minimum hours done under union contract and retiring with full benefits then carefully producing cars that the public would want to buy. Faced with the cold hard facts and declining returns, it is no wonder that GM shut the plant down and moved shop elsewhere. And even so, as the Los Angeles Times article states, "Employees who... attend classes and retraining programs offered by GM will receive full wages and benefits until the current contract expires in September, 1993. Others will collect 85% of their normal salaries." This hardly seems like an abandoning by the evil corporation of GM, but rather just another example of the hold that labor unions have put on industry. If you are curious to hear more about the problems GM was facing, there is a great episode of This American Life that details it.
Now looking towards these policies in a larger sense, they have definitely brought about a lot of terrible consequences and the reasoning for them is less than satisfactory. It is tragic when 2,600+ workers get laid off and dozens of other local businesses are affected as a result, or when wages are cut to "stay competitive" in a global market. It even goes farther sometimes, taking these jobs elsewhere where workers are subjugated to terrible working conditions at extremely low wages. If these are really troubling then you have two options, either talk to your elected representative and demand better policies regarding trade (difficult) or vote with your wallet. At the UCLA store for example, if you are willing to ~$5 more for a shirt, buy the Alta Gracia brand that guarantees good conditions and pay for workers. Because that is what the reality is a lot of times; the American market has been flooded by cheap goods that we take for granted, not realizing what allows for them to be so cheap. At what environment and human cost do we buy a t-shirt for $7 at Target or an iPhone from Apple for $200? To pay the real price of these goods that guarantee all of the benefits we want bestowed would jack up the prices, prices that people already complain about today.
Finally, a lot of these terrible policies did not only come out of the blue as a way for greedy corporations and executives to make more money (although it is undeniable this is sometimes the case and that corporations need to be regulated and kept in check). Most of these policies came as push back against many social welfare policies and programs beginning in the 1930s. At first, demands of labor unions were for an 8-hour work day and decent work conditions that didn't hurt them in the short or long term. But just as corporations can grow greedy, so too can everyone else, and unions took the opportunity through collective bargaining to put in measures that helped them but in the long-run could drive companies into the ground of force them to move abroad. The California Teachers Association (CTA) is a classic example of this, being one of the strongest lobby groups in the state. Now you think that teachers are usually good self-less people who look out for the kids, and while this is generally the truth, they are humans as well who can be inherently greedy as well. Over the course of decades they have built in tenure protections, automatic wage increases, and guaranteed retirement benefits at 85%-100% of their ending salary. So a terrible teacher who slips by their first two years, receives tenure and is now un-fireable except for a major violation like breaking the law, and can retire after 20 years making their salary. And the people who pay for it? The tax-payers of California. We cannot outsource our teaching and so these demands must be met by this union, making budget problems incredibly hard to solve.
So finally, I think before we get too excited in proclaiming Neo-liberals as terrible as the Nazi's, I think we need to look at all sides of an argument and situation to see what really is happening. No side is 100% correct, everyone has their own interests at heart, usually never those of the "common good", because what is the incentive? If one group doesn't take advantage and demand more of something, the other will. It's a trap that our system has created and hopefully can be fixed and alleviated through well-informed voters and policy-makers.
No comments:
Post a Comment