With all the news the last few days about GM and it's new successes, it unfortunately reminded me of the debate back in 2008 in the corporate media about whether or not this industry should be saved? The news media did segment after segment talking about the collapse of this industry and the possible bailout. But to my amazement, 99.9% of those interviewed for these news segments were not current autoworkers, former autoworkers, or even union leaders, but instead representatives of think tanks and business types with historical anti-union biases were ushered around on every network.
False claims from "anchors" and pundits claiming $70 per hour wages for autoworkers raged on for the first few months of the debate. Proclamations that autoworkers should take pay cuts were spouted on virtually every network when in fact autoworkers had already in recent years taken cuts in both pay and benefits. Aren't claims of high wages coming from "inside the beltway" elites a little ridiculous? Does anyone really think television anchors and pundits make less than $100,000 a year? Odd that the corporate media rarely makes this assertion about their own profession or other "white collar" professions?
Without good paying jobs at places like GM, who will pay the taxes needed for the maintenance and construction of roads, bridges, and schools? Without good paying jobs, how many parents will be able to afford to send children to college? Do we really want America to be a place of low wage jobs where the majority are unable to support themselves let alone a family? Do we want an America where the majority are receiving government assistance?
These days it seems like the majority of the corporate media and it's "talking heads" will not be happy until the majority of American workers are making third world wages.
No comments:
Post a Comment