Re: All-out assault on UAW

[raghu <mraghu01@xxxxxxxxx>]

> members! In Canada at least unions often saw their own
> interest as tied to wider social reforms and
> encompassed wider issues such as minimum wages,
> pensions, worker's rights in general, women's rights
> and so forth. In France the unions have been tied to
> political parties such as the Communists who have had
> a much broader aim then simple bread and butter issues
> for members.


Delphi's Steve Miller said recently:
"Some people insist that fairness requires that we slash wages across
the board. Well, I'm sorry. ... There are large disparities in this
country and around the world in what people can expect for mowing a
lawn versus managing a huge business."

Miller claims basically claims that managing a huge entity like Delphi
is such a challenging job that multi-million dollar compensation
packages are entirely justified. But the crucial question Miller is
apparently too stupid to ask and answer is: "what is the economic
rationale for the existence of such unmanageably large entities in the
first place"? Surely at some point the "outrageous CEO pay" factor
outweighs any possible returns from scale?

The UAW needs to challenge the ridiculous rationale in Miller's
statement - along with all of its implications. Accumulation is bad,
it *always* means someone gets left out. If all the UAW cares about is
acquiring a bigger piece of the profit pie for its own members it
cannot expect solidarity from poorer workers in China and elsewhere.

--raghu.