greg334
Veteran Expediter
let me preface this;
The middle class has no real definition, it depends on the context of the statement that defines what the middle class is for us common folk.
With that said, I was listening the other day to a professor over at the U talk about how auto union brought on the demise of the American auto industry.
Now before you think this is about union bashing, it isn't. Her point is simply that progression of the worker, and the professional who are both important key elements of the middle class, had some division that allowed the worker to better themsleves through different means but in the last 50 years, the worker has out priced themselves in the market by becoming as costly as the professional.
This has happened in other industries, she listed 20 of them but the two that stick out in my mind are the mining union and the pullman union.
Her point is that there has been a wave of progression of unionization of industries always seems to end up where the union outlives its usefulness and the worker is better off going back to an open work place to negotiate their worth. This is illustrated with Ford, by allowing the individual to make concessions based on their worth, it would have been better for both then to just have the company make decisions that would save them in the long run.
She also pointed out (this is union bashing) that the claims that the auto union built the middle class is a lie because the auto union in this country wasn't around in 1913 and 1915 when the most significant change to the middle class took place but their exesitance came about in 1935 after the defining moments of the middle class took place, mainly the abilty for the worker to buy the products they made.
The middle class has no real definition, it depends on the context of the statement that defines what the middle class is for us common folk.
With that said, I was listening the other day to a professor over at the U talk about how auto union brought on the demise of the American auto industry.
Now before you think this is about union bashing, it isn't. Her point is simply that progression of the worker, and the professional who are both important key elements of the middle class, had some division that allowed the worker to better themsleves through different means but in the last 50 years, the worker has out priced themselves in the market by becoming as costly as the professional.
This has happened in other industries, she listed 20 of them but the two that stick out in my mind are the mining union and the pullman union.
Her point is that there has been a wave of progression of unionization of industries always seems to end up where the union outlives its usefulness and the worker is better off going back to an open work place to negotiate their worth. This is illustrated with Ford, by allowing the individual to make concessions based on their worth, it would have been better for both then to just have the company make decisions that would save them in the long run.
She also pointed out (this is union bashing) that the claims that the auto union built the middle class is a lie because the auto union in this country wasn't around in 1913 and 1915 when the most significant change to the middle class took place but their exesitance came about in 1935 after the defining moments of the middle class took place, mainly the abilty for the worker to buy the products they made.