Harry Stonecipher, the tough-talking CEO of McDonnell Douglas
from 1994 to 1997, executed one of the great turnarounds in
corporate history. He made no apologies for failing to provide
greater job protection for employees. As he liked to say, the
aerospace giant could “not afford one more worker than the
minimum needed to satisfy the customer.” Or, more
succinctly still, he would say, “Only the customer can guarantee
your job.”
If having a job depends, ultimately, upon satisfying a
paying customer — a lesson many of us first learned as
school children in mowing lawns, shoveling snow and doing other
chores for neighbors — what is one to think of the
sustainability of the 3.5 million jobs that will supposedly be
created or saved by the $787 billion federal stimulus package?
Still more, what is one to think of the future of the U.S.
domestic auto industry — or some of our leading financial
institutions, which are now on federal life-support?
The key to understanding “Obamanomics” — which is not so much
hard-core socialism as it is wishful thinking masquerading as
pragmatism — is that it is based on a different business model
arising out of childhood experience: not the self-initiated and
arduous tasks undertaken by 10 and 11 year-olds seeking to earn
extra spending money, but the more pleasant if boring job
undertaken by much younger children in setting up a lemonade
stand.
To a child of five or six (or to anyone these days who happens to
be making economic policy in the Obama Administration), there’s
no such thing as real money; it’s all play money,
designed to imbue those who are throwing it around with a
spurious sense of power and authority.
The lemonade stand is subsidized front end and back — with free
inputs of lemons and sugar from parents and the indulgence of
other adults who make a show of acting as discriminating
customers.
Little kids see through the phoniness of thinking of the lemonade
stand as a real business and soon tire of it. But the current
economic crisis — in undermining belief in the efficiency and
fairness of the marketplace — has revived faith in
long-discredited economic nostrums, beginning with the idea that
government is up to the task of restructuring big companies and,
in doing so, turning lemons into lemonade. Thus, we saw the
curious spectacle of four members of the President’s
auto-industry task force parachuting into Detroit last month and
(“Here we go again,” as Ronald Reagan might have said) getting a
cram course on the economics of the automotive industry.
To review what would seem to be a simple story: In holding a
monopoly over the supply of labor, the UAW, over a period of many
decades, has used the threat of strikes to extract unreasonable
pay increases and other benefits from management; in doing so,
the union has been the willing and not exactly unwitting
instrument of its own destruction.
So what did members of the task force learn on their fact-finding
mission that might help them devise a cure for the fatal disease
of excessive union power?
Well, the first thing they learned was that they shouldn’t have
worn suits in visiting auto plants, because that is a sight that
offends the delicate feelings of the working men and women, or at
least it does those of their UAW bosses. And second, they learned
from their UAW hosts that, rather than being concentrated in the
state of Michigan, retired autoworkers are spread out across the
United States — which is somehow supposed to make their fate a
matter of national concern (note to the reader:
though the UAW surely did not go out of its way to emphasize the
point, it is safe to assume that a disproportionate number of
retired autoworkers are living in states such as Arizona and
Florida, where golf is played year around). This second
piece of information caused a soulful Steven Mousener, the
task-force chairman, to confide
in the Wall Street Journal, “At the end of all the
numbers we are generating, there are real people.”
Rattner (excuse me, it’s Rattner, not Mousener) would have
learned even more if he had simply picked up a copy of Roger
Lowenstein’s book While America Aged: How Pension Debts
Ruined General Motors, Stopped the NYC Subways, Bankrupted San
Diego and Loom as the Next Financial Crisis, published in
early 2008. Back in 1973, as Lowenstein recounts, the UAW won
full pensions for early retirees under a “thirty-and-out” plan.
This meant that an autoworker starting at a factory out of high
school could retire with full benefits before the age of fifty —
becoming a permanent ward of the company while still in the prime
of life. What a deal!
As described in Lowenstein’s book, the gushing stream of cash
flow that once went to GM’s shareholders as dividends was thereby
diverted to GM’s current and future retirees:
Over a fifteen-year stretch ending in 2006, GM poured $55
billion into its workers’ pension plan, compared to only $13
billion that it paid out in dividends. In other words, the
company paid its pensioners four times as much — not including
the money that it spent on their generous health care benefits
— as it did to its ostensible owners!
And that explains why the company’s stock has been in continuous
decline — not just over the past few years, but over the past
four decades. GM’s leaders over the years may be described as
quislings for knuckling under to the union’s demands. But there
can be no denying the central part that union has played in the
unraveling of the business. Rattner went to the right place when
he started his visit to Detroit at the UAW’s headquarters. It’s
just too bad that he went hat in hand.
Like the community organizer he once was, President Obama’s
approach to saving Detroit has been keyed to bringing different
people and factions together…and selling them on his
idea of a green and desirable future. He has called for “a set of
sacrifices from all parties involved — management, labor,
shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers.” In return for such
“sacrifices,” he promises various subsidies and speaks of a
revitalized Detroit that will “lead the world in building the
next generation of clean cars” and create new jobs that “cannot
be outsourced.”
Appleby| 4.14.09 @ 6:35AM
Look for the Union Label ....
Here in Kanukistan GM unionistas are shrieking that the Province of Ontario -- currently in massive deficit despite the 46% tax rate on the average employed person -- has a *Moral Duty* to support these bloated pensioners in the manner to which they demand, whether or not anybody ever buys another GM car.
That will be their next move in the USA. Count on it.
CS Lewis| 4.14.09 @ 8:39AM
To lump pensions just to the UAW and auto workers, who made a deal with the business, worked the work and then retired with their pensions is to ignore other pension holders not auto workers, who made a deal with the business, worked the work and then retired with their pensons also rightfully earned.
Businesses grew, prospered and made America the most successful country in the world by this process.
Not a word about government employees who have done the same with much less work required and a pension gained in so short a time and perks far beyond the average worker which they created and expanded while destroying businesses by making laws and remaking them until we have arrived at the condition the country is now in.
I don't hear anyone demanding to take away government employees retired or working, pensions or perks, or health care. They are in control, they are set for life.
And, it's getting worse, just as the article, "Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy" relates.
dcd| 4.14.09 @ 9:32AM
And don't forget those lazy soldiers who made a deal with the government that included extravegent pensions and benifits merely to risk their lives for national defense.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.14.09 @ 9:37AM
The bills have come due, and GM can't pay them.
Marc Jeric| 4.14.09 @ 12:15PM
Show me a strong union and I'll show you a dying or dead industry. Examples abound - automobiles, textile, electronics, steel, etc. Given enough time every union will come under the sway of either the mafia or the communists (which is the same thing). With one exception - unions of government employees. Their "work" cannot be outsourced so the destruction is continuing and permanent - see teacher unions where our education industry manufactures millions of illiterate morons voting for that empty suit and marxist Abu Hussein from Kenys. Or the bureaucrat who issued the visa extension to the 9/11 terrorist 6 months after he died his martyr's death.
CS Lewis| 4.14.09 @ 1:52PM
dcd... right on. the ones (vets), Janet the head of homeland security who is defaming, calling them right wing possibly ready to do harm to others.
This is to try to discourage Vets from going to Tea parties.
And just think of our military who gave their life for this country and their familes were just left with peanuts. Thank God for those people who are taking care of soldiers and their familes since the Iraq War began.
Rick Josey | 4.14.09 @ 2:54PM
We MUST care for our Veterans. They kept us free.
And we MUST vote out all these lunatics who are wrecking our country with their failed socialistic policies. You CANNOT get out of debt by throwing yourself further into debt. You have to stimulate economic growth through INCENTIVES. Does any sane business person walking this planet think it's an investment incentive to be TAXED INTO OBLIVION????
The nuts in Washington must go. VOTE THEM OUT... and meanwhile...
Head for a Tea Party...
www.PatriotHangout.com
nem| 4.14.09 @ 3:27PM
The comments regarding veterans pensions are interesting. But being a retired veteran (infantry and then Special Forces), I really am of two minds. First, I certainly believe that we need to care for those injured in the service of their country (I happen to be the only SF guy I know who does not have a disability) and certainly we need to provide sufficient incentives so as to get folks to volunteer for the military. But that said, the package really is pretty generous. Particularly when you consider that most of the fighting and dying is done by the youngsters. But a pension is only obtained by hanging around for 20 plus years (combat is not a prerequisit). So, regardless of one's MOS, deployments, sacrifices, etc., we all get the same pension based on rank and number of years at retirement. Approx 50% pay after 20 years and up to 75% after 30.
Its hard to gage what is appropriate. I understand the feeling that we deserve every penny of what we get. But, I can look at folks who really did earn their pay so to speak. Guys who routinely risked their lives. And I can look at a person who served in the Quartermaster Corps who never heard a shot fired in anger (nothing against QM guys). If sacrifice is the measure, why do they get the same pension?
Maybe some changes are needed. Don't know what, but if we are advocating that Vets deserve it because of their sacrifices, then the system should account for the differential in sacrifice. If not, then.......? What? I don't know. But I am not going to cry that I am underappreciated because I don't get enough money from the public weal.
Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 10:56PM
play money? like the hundreds of billions for the prescription drug program?
Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 10:59PM
or the 1990 Disabilities (i.e. cripples hoisted on buses) Act?
now, whose father signed that bill?
Warren A Scaman CPA| 4.15.09 @ 12:32PM
How about a 100 % Funded Pension, then they have a Right to their % as a secured creditor.
But get real... an Unfunded Promise is an unsecured Creditor. Place them all on Medicare. They had 30 year for their Union to get it funded properly.
Warren A Scaman CPA| 4.15.09 @ 12:32PM
How about a 100 % Funded Pension, then they have a Right to their % as a secured creditor.
But get real... an Unfunded Promise is an unsecured Creditor. Place them all on Medicare. They had 30 year for their Union to get it funded properly.