Re: [Pen-l] labor and the auto companies

[raghu <mraghu01@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:59 PM, David B. Shemano <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Are you saying there are inherent conflicts if the workers own the means of production?  What kind of Marxist are you?
>

I am not sure I am a Marxist. But anyway, if GM had been
worker-managed from the start, the conflicts would not have arisen.
How did GM go so deeply in the hole on retiree-benefits? Because
during the good times in the 90's, they used money that should have
gone into the pension funds and spent it on other things. Raiding
so-called over-funded pension funds was quite popular in those days.

The UAW did not create the conflicts. But they would be stuck with it
if they were to take over GM without government help.



>>>But the question is: would you support a government bailout of worker-owned firms?
>
> If I would not be willing to buy a share of GM for $3 (whether owned by public shareholders or the UAW), why would I be willing to do so as a taxpayer?
>

Without a bailout, GM is deeply insolvent. Worker-managed or not,
there is no way they can meet their liabilities. Would you rather
bailout a privately-owned company or a worker-owned company? Two bad
choices I know, but that's all we have.
-raghu.

-- 
"Really ?? What a coincidence, I'm shallow too!!"
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l