Michigan Radio: Jack Lessenberry: Jack's Take
Daily interviews and essays about politics and current events with newspaper columnist Jack Lessenberry.
Visit Show Website http://www.michiganradio.org/Recently Aired
-
HD
The Agony of Flint Water
Yesterday I was thinking that in a sense, Flint has ...
Yesterday I was thinking that in a sense, Flint has become Detroit's Detroit. In other words, for years, the urban crisis in Detroit was seen as the worst in the state, if not the entire nation. Last year, a woman studying psychology in Marquette told me, "I feel so sorry for people who live in places like Detroit and Syria." But things are improving in Detroit, even if not as fast as we would like. Detroit is now in vogue, and the bookshelves are crowded with new works by writers who come for a few weeks and feel compelled to explain the city, which they don't really understand. But few realize that sixty miles up I-75, a smaller ruined manufacturing town sits and suffers. Flint gets little respect and less attention, unless native Michael Moore puts it in a movie. Flint was the ultimate company town, and the company was General Motors. The city had close to two hundred thousand people once. But then the bottom fell out of the auto industry. Flint has fewer than a hundred thousand left now, and all the usual problems of decaying infrastructure, not enough jobs, and being in and out of emergency management. But Flint lacks the glamour and cachet of Detroit. Young French artists and intellectuals aren't rushing in for the Flint experience. And right now, Flint has a horrendous problem even Detroit has never experienced. While Detroiters complain about water shutoffs, the situation in Flint is far worse. Residents are paying for some of the most expensive water bills in the nation, and there is increasing evidence their water is making them sick and poisoning their children. Last year, to save money, Flint announced it was no longer going to buy Detroit water, but would instead become a customer of the Karegnondi Water Authority, which would give them water from Lake Huron. But that system won't be ready till next year. So in the meantime, Flint has been pulling water from the Flint River, and that has been a disaster from day one. The water looked bad, tasted bad, smelled bad. And that was the good news. First there were concerns about elevated levels of bacteria. Then, there were signs residents' health was being affected by the amount of disinfectant authorities needed to put in. And now, lead. Yesterday, a new study by physicians at the Hurley Medical Center showed that the tap water residents are drinking now has resulted in significant elevated lead levels in the blood of Flint's children. The water seems to be more corrosive than lake water, and it is causing lead to leach out of the old pipes thousands of homes still have. The city apparently told one doctor that Flint couldn't afford to go back to using Detroit water. But when you think about the effects of lead poisoning, it's clear it can't afford to do anything else. The Flint Journal today said it was Governor Snyder's responsibility, since it was his emergency manager who made the disastrous decision to switch to the river water. Whoever is to blame, Flint needs to fix this, now. As far as I know, residents haven't marched on city hall yet with pitchforks. But if they were to do that, I wouldn't blame them one bit. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
Carrying Guns
Yesterday, a circuit judge in Washtenaw County struck a blow ...
Yesterday, a circuit judge in Washtenaw County struck a blow for common sense and sanity by ruling that Ann Arbor public schools could ban guns in their buildings. That immediately provoked a furious reaction from those who think guns more important than anything else, including the lives and well-being of children. The attorney for a group called Michigan Gun Owners fairly sneered "I think the judge decided to ignore state law." He added that they would appeal. The guns-under-any-circumstances folks expect to win that appeal, and they may, at least in the early stages. Last month, a judge in Genesee County ruled that a father can openly carry his pistol inside his daughter's elementary school. Three years ago, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a split decision, ruled that libraries cannot ban the open carry of weapons. Morally, these rulings are about as awful, in my view, as the Dred Scott decision, and I expect society will eventually realize that. But even if not, the gun worshipers are missing something, and are making a strategic mistake which may eventually result in a United States Supreme Court decision they won't like. Because schools can, in fact, legally carry ban guns. Communities can also ban dangerous and unusual weapons. Every indication is that if the current U.S. Supreme Court got the Ann Arbor case or the one from Clio in Genesee County, the justices would rule on behalf of the schools, not those who want to bring guns into them. My source for that is the best one possible: Justice Antonin Scalia, the man who wrote the majority opinion inDistrict of Columbia vs. Heller seven years ago, the first time the high court ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact establish an individual citizen's right to bear arms. That was anything but a unanimous decision; the vote was five to four, the same as two years later in a similar case,McDonald v. Chicago. But in the first case, Justice Scalia wrote "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Scalia also wrote "we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms." That is the right to ban "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Well, you could certainly argue that any weapon is dangerous and unusual in a third-grade classroom. Those on the side of all guns, all the time, do have one argument: Michigan does not expressly ban the open carry of weapons in schools, though it does in day care centers. But you could certainly make the case that a school is very much like a day care center. The gun lobby seems to have lost all perspective, but there are signs that people are getting exasperated with bad behavior and guns. This spring, a suburban Detroit school was repeatedly locked down after a provocateur marched around it and up to the door with a loaded rifle. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated society can do much more to regulate guns than we do now. I have a hunch we may be finally about to start. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
Wasting the taxpayers' time
Even in the age of current silliness, I had real ...
Even in the age of current silliness, I had real doubts this was true. But in fact it is – sort of, at any rate. House Bill 4883 would revise Michigan's school code to, among other things, make it illegal to, quote "allow a pupil to practice with a family planning drug or device in a public school or on public school property." That would, I suppose, cover using a device on a banana. The bill is mainly an anti-abortion, anti-contraception bill, which was introduced by State Representative Thomas Hooker, a former high school wrestling coach from the Western Michigan town of Wyoming. Hooker is in his last term, and will be gone from the House forever in sixteen months. His bill was co-sponsored by ten other representatives, all of whom are social conservatives. The bill calls for the teaching of abstinence, and would forbid teachers to talk about abortion as either a family planning measure or as a "method of reproductive health." That's probably unconstitutional, since abortion is a legal medical procedure which long ago was declared by the United States Supreme Court to be part of a woman's fundamental rights. My guess is that this bill is going nowhere, and those who introduced it did so to make points with their fundamentalist Christian constituents. What's fascinating to me, however, is not the anti-abortion rhetoric, but the implied belief that the best way to prevent teenage sex is to withhold knowledge about contraception. This is how a lot of parents believed half a century ago, when I was beginning high school. There was also, as we came to find out, a term that would apply to many of those kids who indeed remained ignorant of how contraception worked: Teen-age parents. Today, there's a lot of evidence that the best way to increase the number of teen-age abortions is to withhold knowledge from kids. We all have our ideas, but the hormones tend to win, most of the time. Fortunately, I was saved from having my life ruined, not by virtue, but by being shy, non-athletic and socially inept. Regardless of that, I wonder how those behind this bill would feel if left-wing liberals took over the legislature, and introduced a bill making it illegal to talk about guns, say anything good about guns, or teach young people how guns work. That could happen. My guess is that most of the nation feels the high court was either wrong about abortions or guns, but not both. Personally, though I hate guns, I wouldn't want our lawmakers to do that either, or to waste their time condemning violence in the Middle East, iron-poor blood, or other twaddle irrelevant to their jobs. We have a state whose infrastructure is falling apart, whose prisons are overcrowded, and whose schools are going bankrupt. They need to deal with those things and get them fixed, before anything else. If Mr. Hooker can find a way to do that, I'll happily agree to treat bananas any way he wants. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
The fight over prevailing wage isn't a classic 'right vs. left' battle
Well, if you've been following the news from Lansing, it ...
Well, if you've been following the news from Lansing, it seems likely that the Legislature will soon vote to eliminate what's known as "prevailing wage," which is the requirement that the state pay union-scale wages to workers on state construction projects. This has long been a cause championed by State Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, who seems to hate unions. Those supporting this idea say it would save Michigan hundreds of millions of dollars. But those opposed say it would do no such thing, that it will create bottlenecks and delays and risk shoddy and unsafe construction on state buildings. Those supporting this idea say it would save Michigan hundreds of millions of dollars. You might think at first glance this is a classic conservative vs. liberal issue, but it isn't. Governor Rick Snyder is dead set against repealing the prevailing wage requirement, and has indicated that he'll veto any bill that does so, if he gets the chance. Many other Republicans more conservative also support prevailing wage, including Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan, the last Republican vice-presidential nominee. You might think major contractors like Barton Malow would want to get rid of prevailing wage, but you'd be wrong. In May, Mike Stobak, one of their vice-presidents, testified before a State Senate subcommittee. He reminded the senators that the prevailing wage law was briefly suspended in the 1990s, and that was a disaster. Fewer contractors bid on state projects. Workers often left contractors in the middle of a project, causing concerns about quality. "Please, let's avoid the temptation to take the easy route and return to what we know is a failed approach." - Mike Stobak, Barton Marlow Stobak told the legislators, "Please, let's avoid the temptation to take the easy route and return to what we know is a failed approach." But there are many people who want to pay workers less regardless, including the DeVos family of Grand Rapids. When it was clear the governor wasn't going to support repealing prevailing wage, a group called Protecting Michigan Taxpayers swung into action. According to Bridge Magazine, the group was heavily financed by the Michigan Freedom Fund, which has close ties to the DeVos family, and a Lansing-based trade group that includes mostly non-union contractors. Once bankrolled, Protecting Michigan Taxpayers launched a petition drive to collect enough signatures to get a ballot initiative repealing prevailing wage. They've now turned in those signatures, and early indications are that they have more than enough. Now, in a case like this, an odd quirk in Michigan law allows the Legislature to avoid this getting on the ballot by enacting into law what the initiative calls for within 40 days. And when the Legislature does that with an initiative petition, the governor doesn't get a chance to veto it. If they don't enact the initiative, it then goes on next year's ballot. Which, by the way, is precisely what those behind the petition drive don't want, even though they collected signatures to do just that. Putting this on the ballot could spark a massive turnout of pro-union voters who would try to defeat it, and who would vote mostly for Democrats running for office. The state senate is certain to vote to get rid of prevailing wage, but the initiative's prospects are a little less certain in the House. Democrats have more strength there, and a few Republicans may not want to anger the state's construction workers in an election year. We'll just have to wait and see. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
Pure Selfishness
Richard Nixon is remembered today largely for all the bad ...
Richard Nixon is remembered today largely for all the bad things he did while President. He lied, engaged in a massive cover-up of criminal activities, obstructed justice, bugged even himself – you name it. But occasionally, even Nixon showed signs of caring about something larger than himself. When he lost an extremely close presidential election to John F. Kennedy in 1960, he was urged by many people, including then-President Eisenhower, to seek recounts in two key states, Illinois and Texas, where there were reports of massive voting irregularities. Had Nixon carried those states, he would have been President. But he said the country would have been torn apart by a disputed election, and he declined to challenge the result. Courser and Gamrat have no such qualms. For them, everything is all about themselves. Incredibly, both are now attempting to run in the special election called to replace them in the state house of representatives. There's a real question as to whether Gamrat is even eligible, and it is far from clear that the House would agree to seat either if they were elected. Quite apart from their well-known shenanigans, they have already cost the taxpayers much wasted time and thousands of dollars. They have cost taxpayers even more by having forced two special elections in each district. But beyond that, here's the real damage they've done. Lawmakers have been working diligently and desperately to try and get an agreement to fix the roads. The Courser-Gamrat saga has been a major distraction from that. The news media, probably including me, have also been somewhat to blame. The attention we've paid to the bad behavior and posturing of these two has sucked up all the air in the room, distracting the public from paying attention to anything else. Last week, Off the Record, the only public affairs TV show that focuses on state government, had as its guest once again Todd Courser, who made it clear that he is reveling in all this, like any other emotional four year old would do. One of the very first things he said was "this is my first worldwide sex scandal and cover-up." It wasn't clear if he was trying to be funny. However, this does show that he is guilty of megalomania way beyond the norm. I doubt if anyone in London, Paris or Los Angeles has even heard of the tawdry misbehaviors of a couple obscure Michigan lawmakers, and I'd be astonished if anyone outside this state cares. Almost nobody thinks they are fit for office. Their own voters are very likely to tell them so November 3rd. Until then, I hope this is the last thing I have to write about them, and I hope the media ignores both Courser and Gamrat, insofar as possible. This state has real issues and real problems and some elected representatives who are trying very hard to deal with them, and improve our state. We owe it to ourselves to leave the circus, and write and talk more about things that really matter instead. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
The General Motors problem
I know a couple who bought two brand-new General Motors ...
I know a couple who bought two brand-new General Motors cars in the mid-1980s. She bought an Oldsmobile station wagon, and he bought a beautiful sleek Buick. Listen Listening... 3:05 They carefully maintained them, didn't abuse them, and the cars fell apart. The Oldsmobile finally died after barely seventy thousand miles. The Buick had massive electrical problems for which the company refused to take any responsibility. Once the engine just stopped in the middle of I-75, and the man steered into a ditch so he wouldn't be crushed by an oncoming truck. They mostly drove Volvos and Japanese cars after that. They would both rather drive Mongolian cars than ever buy another General Motors vehicle. They aren't interested in hearing claims that GM has changed. Multiply their experience by a few million people, and it is not all that surprising that a company that once sold more than half the cars in America now sells barely one in every six. The couple I mentioned probably wasn't the least bit surprised by GM's defective ignition switch disaster. There was one thing different this time. CEO Mary Barra has been far more forthcoming than any of the automaker's Soviet-style leaders were in the past. Yesterday, she told a group of employees in Warren, "people were hurt and people died in our cars. We let those customers down ... apologies and accountability won't change much if we don't change our behavior." That's right, of course – and there's absolutely nothing to indicate that Barra knew anything about the ignition switch scandal, which was in motion long before she became the first female CEO in any Detroit automaker's history. Yesterday, the car company announced it was paying $900 million dollars to settle a federal criminal investigation into the crisis. Daniel Howes, the business-friendly Detroit News columnist, succinctly defined the scandal today as one of "shoddy engineering," followed by the usual cover-up on the part of General Motors executives, a handful of which were later fired. The official human toll for this negligence now stands at 124 dead and 270 injured, and may well go higher. General Motors' costs so far are a little more than a billion and a half dollars in claims and fines. Nobody knows how much the company will lose in lost future sales, or the long-term costs in terms of customer good will. The taxpayers spent billions bailing out General Motors less than seven years ago. You have to wonder what would have happened if this had been known about then. I have no doubt that Mary Barra is absolutely sincere about trying to change the culture of cover-up and resistance to change. If I could pick any corporate executive to have dinner and a long conversation with, it would be she. But I have yet to be convinced she can do it. Thirty years ago, a brilliant and dynamic leader named Mikhail Gorbachev tried hard to change the behavior and the corporate culture of the stagnant and nefarious old Soviet Union. But that foul old political corporation imploded and died instead. I'm not saying that's what's in store for General Motors. But I'm not sure the corporation could survive another scandal like this one, and I know they just lost even more past and potential customers, probably forever. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
600,000 people could lose "Healthy Michigan" benefits
I didn't watch much of the Republican Presidential debate last ...
I didn't watch much of the Republican Presidential debate last night, but listened to some of it while driving. What struck me was that all the candidates talked as if President Obama was the worst thing in our nation's history. Worse than the Civil War, the Great Depression, you name it. Well, I don't propose to get into an analysis of the current administration. But I will assert that there is clear evidence that in one very important way, President Obama has made life better for people nationally, and in Michigan: Health care coverage. Yesterday, a few hours before the debate, the U.S. Census Bureau released new data showing that more people have insurance both nationally and in Michigan than before the Affordable Care Act took effect. Michigan has improved more than average. That's largely thanks not only to President Obama, but Governor Rick Snyder and the Healthy Michigan Plan, otherwise known as the expansion of Medicaid to those just slightly over the official poverty rate. Overall, nearly a quarter of a million more people in Michigan had health insurance last year than the year before. According to the Center for Healthcare Research and Transformation, the number of adults in our state without any coverage was cut in half, from 14% to 7%, just between 2012 and 2014. Overall, nearly a quarter of a million more people in Michigan had health insurance last year than the year before. It would be hard to exaggerate how positive this is. Naturally, people are better and happier citizens, better parents and partners when they are healthy, but they are also better workers and employees. I haven't seen any efforts to quantify this, but our more healthy population has to be reducing absenteeism and boosting the productivity of our businesses. Most of the increase comes from the expansion of Medicaid benefits through what is called the Healthy Michigan Plan, which the Legislature barely passed two years ago. They expanded Medicaid coverage to those making up to about one-third more than the official poverty rate. We aren't talking free health care for the affluent. The most a family of four can earn and still be covered is $32,500 a year. And without this, those folks would have no health care. And right now the federal government is paying for everything. Michigan won't have to pay anything till 2017, and never more than 10% of the entire cost. But this coverage is seriously threatened. Conservatives forced two waivers into the Michigan bill. The first was approved by Washington, but the second hasn't yet been approved. Unless Washington accepts the waiver, or the Legislature modifies the bill by the end of this year, everybody in the Healthy Michigan plan will lose all benefits at the end of next April: 600,000 people. It would require those getting benefits to pay higher co-pays, or to enroll in a federal Health Insurance Marketplace and lose some Medicaid-provided services, such as dental coverage. Regardless of what you think about that, here's the big problem. Unless Washington accepts the waiver, or the Legislature modifies the bill by the end of this year, everybody in the Healthy Michigan plan will lose all benefits at the end of next April: 600,000 people. That would be devastating for them and the state. Few have noticed yet, but it is essential this be fixed, and that may be hard. The current Legislature seems less sympathetic to health care expansion than the one that barely passed this. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see what happens next.. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
Michigan's Hottest Race
Here's one safe political prediction: the race in Michigan's First ...
Here's one safe political prediction: the race in Michigan's First Congressional district is going to be a lot more expensive than anyone thought two days ago. Listen Listening... 3:07 Republican Congressman Dan Benishek abruptly announced yesterday that he had decided to keep his three-term pledge after all, and retire after this term. A few months ago he had changed his mind, but is now changing it back. Which means a race that was already competitive just got red-hot. Suddenly, lights may have been burning in several Republican homes, as politicians tried to persuade their families this was a race worth making. "Suddenly, lights may have been burning in several Republican homes, as politicians tried to persuade their families this was a race worth making." State Senator Tom Casperson of Escanaba is perhaps the most likely to run. But he may be challenged in the GOP primary by State Representative Peter Pettalia of Presque Isle, and former State Senator Jason Allen, of Traverse City. The man who succeeded Allen in the Senate, Wayne Schmidt, could run too. Democrats already have a primary race, one that hasn't gotten nasty yet, but which could. Two years ago, then-State Party Chair Lon Johnson recruited Jerry Cannon, the former sheriff of Kalkaska County, to run for the seat. Cannon lost, but wants to try again this year. But he has an opponent for the nomination — Johnson himself, who abruptly resigned as party chair early this summer. Johnson grew up south of Detroit and then lived in several other states, but has a family home near Kalkaska. His wife was a renowned fundraiser for President Obama, and Johnson is expected to have access to lots of campaign cash. But he may be billed as a carpetbagger. Michigan's First Congressional District is a unique place, one of the geographically biggest districts in the eastern United States. The sparsely populated Upper Peninsula makes up more than half the district's space, but less than half its population. The First District also includes almost a third of the northern Lower Peninsula. Until now, this district always has been represented by a Yooper – but that could change. Most of the likeliest candidates (and the population) are from the Lower Peninsula. "Politically, the district has divided loyalties. Economically, it is poorer than average, which is good for Democrats. But socially, it's more conservative, which helps Republicans." Politically, the district has divided loyalties. Economically, it is poorer than average, which is good for Democrats. But socially, it's more conservative, which helps Republicans. Socially conservative Democrats like former Congressman Bart Stupak traditionally do well here; he represented the district for eighteen years. When Tom Casperson tried to take him on seven years ago, Stupak beat him two to one. But Stupak then retired, and was replaced by Benishek, a favorite of the Tea Party. Benishek won pretty easily in 2010 and 2014. But he nearly lost three years ago, finally edging out former State Rep. Gary McDowell by less than one percent. Presidential election years are harder for Republican candidates in Michigan, and with no incumbent, Democrats think this is their chance. We'll have to see. To some extent, it may depend on the presidential contest. If Democrats win Michigan easily and the turnout is large, it is bound to help their candidate here. What we do know is that millions will now be spent on this race, largely for TV advertising. It would be nice if that money could be spent on creating jobs there instead. But that, after all, is what the candidates will promise to do. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
Back to the Future with the UAW and the Whigs
Well, if you woke up in Detroit early this morning ...
Well, if you woke up in Detroit early this morning you might have thought you were in one of those old Back to the Future movies. The lead story was the auto talks; negotiators for the company and the union had been up all night, and workers on the line were waiting to see if they would get a deal, keep talking, or send everyone out on strike. We haven't seen anything like an authentic, old-fashioned, drawn-out labor stoppage in the industry since about the time giant tail fins were popular. Nobody really wanted a strike, but the fact one was even being contemplated was in a way, heartening. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that we were all worried that the assembly lines at General Motors and Chrysler might stop and never start again. The auto industry is different and smaller, but it's back. And the union is still here. Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Modern Whig Party is asking to be recognized as an official political party in our state. I have to say I'm intrigued; after all, we haven't had a president like Zachary Taylor or William Henry Harrison for a long time. The modern Whigs say they are in favor of fiscal responsibility, pragmatism, and integrity in government. Their symbol is an owl, rather than a donkey or an elephant. Naturally, with common-sense positions like that, they don't stand a chance. But I'm told they did capture a school board seat in Westfield, New Jersey last year – so you never know. What I do find surprising is how many people are still enthusiastic about running for the state legislature. Boatloads of them, mainly Republicans, are lining up to run in November primaries for the seats just vacated by Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat. Most will spend many thousands to try to win a seat next March that they will immediately have to start running for again to keep after November. Meanwhile, other candidates are already running hard for seats that will become vacant at the end of next year, for which even the primary is almost a year away. An attorney in Clinton Township, for example, is going after the seat of term-limited Marilyn Lane of Fraser. Lane still has most of her term left, but that's life in the world of the perpetual campaign. Occasionally people ask me if I would run for office if I wasn't a journalist and wanted to make this a better state. The answer is no way. Thanks to gerrymandering and term limits, the game has been rigged to give one party overwhelming dominance, and to ensure that no member of the legislature can stay long enough to be truly effective. What we need are not people running for office, but state constitutional amendments to change term limits and the redistricting process, and unless and until we get them, we'll be doomed to more of what we have now. But if we ever fix this, and if I'm ever tempted to get into politics, I think I'll check out the Modern Whigs. They drew a total of fourteen people to their first National Leadership Council meeting. I have a hunch that if I wanted their nomination, I wouldn't have to wait my turn. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
-
HD
A nightmare scenario for the auto industry.
Imagine going back half a century, and asking people which ...
Imagine going back half a century, and asking people which of these two things would be more likely fifty years in the future: A) The United States would have established a permanent colony on the moon; or, B) The United Auto Workers union would have chosen a foreign-owned automaker as its target company in contract negotiations. Then imagine a world where most U.S. car sales are foreign and not domestic anyway, the union has less than a third of its peak membership, and newer auto workers are paid far less than those who have been there a while. And, oh yes – Michigan will have become a right-to-work state. If you'd asked that back then, virtually everyone would have guessed a moon colony would be far more likely than what would have seemed like a nightmare scenario for the auto industry. Well, we're in a new century now. Yesterday, the UAW announced Fiat Chrysler would indeed be the target company. The union's contracts with all three automakers expire at midnight, and for the first time in eight years, the UAW can strike at Chrysler or General Motors, if it wants to. But nobody is talking about a strike at this point. They are talking about a contract that will position the Detroit Three, including Chrysler, to be competitive against a raft of invaders like Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. The union also needs to get something for its workers after years of givebacks. Most of all, they really want to negotiate an end to the hated two-tier contract system that has workers hired in the last eight years paid only about two-thirds as much as longer-serving workers. And even the higher-paid workers haven't had a raise--not even for inflation--in close to ten years. These haven't been great times to be an auto worker. The union does have some things going for it. Auto sales have been great the last few years. The car companies, which were once hemorrhaging billions, are now all richly profitable again. The UAW's new chief, Dennis Williams, is a skilled and common-sense negotiator who seems stronger than his predecessor, Bob King. Two months ago, I did a TV show on the approaching auto talks, and neither of the experts on with me predicted Fiat Chrysler would be the target company. But today, picking Chrysler seems to make a lot of sense. It has more second-tier workers than either Ford or GM. And Chrysler, while again making money. is less profitable than the other two. The union operates under a principle of "pattern bargaining," in which they try to get virtually the same contract with all three automakers. Financially, Chrysler's somewhat weaker position means any agreement it can live with should also fly at GM or Ford. The union has another big goal for these talks: Creating a health care cooperative for auto workers at all the companies that will reduce costs, but not cost the workers any more out of pocket or reduce their quality of care. Getting to yes won't be easy, but my guess is that it is doable – and urgent. Legally, Michigan autoworkers will soon be able to opt out of the union. The UAW's long-term survival depends on the vast majority of them deciding not to leave. Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's political analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.
