Democratic Primaries

TexasTowelie

(127,520 posts)

27. The counter-argument to that is

Fri Sep 20, 2019, 09:14 AM

Sep 2019

that the workers can go find other jobs if they aren't satisfied with their compensation.

It is a conceit for anyone (from the entry-level custodian to the highest-paid CEO) to believe that they are not expendable. While I hope that the workers and union can negotiate an agreement that meets most of their demands, there is always a risk that things may turn out unfavorably when workers decide to strike. The union and the union members should be realistic that GM no longer has an insurable interest in the workers since they went on strike. Therefore, there is no reason for GM to provide any type of benefits to the workers who are not contributing to the profitability of the company.

Do I like that is true--no. However, my pragmatic side sees the rationale behind the business decision.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How the GM workers strike makes Bernie Sanders's case for Medicare-for-all [View all] Uncle Joe Sep 2019 OP

Is UAW ASKING for MfA? Or do their members want to hold on to their existing coverage? brooklynite Sep 2019 #1

Let's poll that picket line to start with! bluewater Sep 2019 #2

Can you promise that it would? brooklynite Sep 2019 #3

Why shouldn't it? bluewater Sep 2019 #4

ACA requires provision of medical coverage (if 50+ employees) to full-time workers under ACA... brooklynite Sep 2019 #6

The new law would though. bluewater Sep 2019 #7

That law doesn't exist right now and hasn't got enough comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #8

shrug neither does a public option, so let's all give up? bluewater Sep 2019 #9

but ACA does exist JI7 Sep 2019 #12

until the SCOTUS says it doesn't Celerity Sep 2019 #14

That won't even pass a committee -- and it has to pass 4 committees nt NYMinute Sep 2019 #20

Can you be certain that a Medicare for All Bill will prevail TexasTowelie Sep 2019 #26

I don't take my company insurance forthemiddle Sep 2019 #29

I am union Tennessee Tuxedo Sep 2019 #10

Interested. What insurance plan is that? nt fleabiscuit Sep 2019 #11

lol, you DO pay for it, it is called a vastly lower wage paid to you in the contract due to the fact Celerity Sep 2019 #13

Just as MFA is vastly lower take-home pay by increased taxes nt NYMinute Sep 2019 #19

Not that MFA is ever going to pass, but the overall net cost would Celerity Sep 2019 #23

"The cost would be lower" is MFA's illusion NYMinute Sep 2019 #24

there are multiple studies out there that show it does, compared to what we would spend Celerity Sep 2019 #28

+1000 nt NYMinute Sep 2019 #21

Unfortunately, due to the primacy of the shareholder doctrine, over the last several decades, PatrickforO Sep 2019 #30

The UAW has a $800 million dollar strike fund MichMan Sep 2019 #5

I doubt that would buy all members of the UAW even a years worth of insurance coverage. fleabiscuit Sep 2019 #17

The strike won't even last a few weeks nt NYMinute Sep 2019 #22

it sure does... myohmy2 Sep 2019 #15

"If you like your plan, you can keep it"* PDittie Sep 2019 #16

BS won't get any union votes because of this NYMinute Sep 2019 #18

That is making the case perfectly. The owners shouldn't have that kind of power over people's lives JudyM Sep 2019 #25

The counter-argument to that is TexasTowelie Sep 2019 #27

Health care should not be in the purview of an employer to "negotiate." JudyM Sep 2019 #31