A Democrat as the new President. Usually the party favors unions. They give a lot of money. Democrats can also count on unions to endorse them and turn out the vote. Now it is time for the party which will control The White House and Congress to pay labor back.
It may not be that simple. According to The New York Times, "labor invested more than $300 million to help elect Mr. Obama and enlarge the Democratic majority in Congress, and it expects both to enact legislation that will make it easier for millions of workers to unionize."
The most obvious case that unions may not do as well as they had hoped is the UAW. Many car workers believe Obama may ride to their rescue. The Bush Administration said the UAW would have to go along with large cuts as their part of helping GM (NYSE:GM) and Chrysler. But, potential loans form the Obama Administration to the car companies may not push the union so hard.
The car companies are probably a bad example and the newspaper industry is probably a better one. It was once one of the largest employers in the US and is still a huge provider of jobs. No so long ago the unions representing reporters, drivers, and pressmen had the leverage with management to dictate terms which put their members solidly into the middle class. As the newspaper industry has moved into a downward cycle, these unions have lost their bite.
The Obama Administration could do something for the newspaper unions. It could help bail the industry out by giving papers loans. It could help guarantee jobs. But, that won't happen. The newspaper unions will die no matter what they did to get the Democrats in office. Obama knows there is only so much money to go around. If there is not enough to help unionized industries, that's tough luck.
Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.
Why is gold making a new high, trading at $1,118.00 per ounce?
Chasing Value: Ten stocks for 2010 -- Part 1 
Closing Bell: A six-day rally (AIG, REGN, M, MOT, PALM, RIMM)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-29-2008 @ 9:37AM
BHarrison said...
The basic problems with the newspaper industry is that those who have bought the newspapers bascially overpaid for the companies, putting the newspapers deeply into debt; and the Internet has caused the demise of newspapers . . . there are fewer sales/subscriptions, and therefore a reduction in advertisers, which is being exacerbated by the deep recessino that we are in.
The loss of newspapers threatens the media source for millions of people; and would be tragic loss for our society, and the freedom of speech . . . . however, with the ownership of so many newspapers by Rupert Madock, the "freemdom of the press has become rather controlled in many ways.
How is "giving loans" to failing newspapers going to resolve these problems though? The only solution is for these corporations to scale back the size of the papers and trying to boost subscriptions (which isn't going to be easy, if possible at all). Just 'bailing out" (sic. subsidizing) newspaprers is not going to resolve these problems.
We'll all be diminished by the loss of our major newspapers.
12-29-2008 @ 9:58AM
BHarrison said...
Comment from the article: "If there is not enough to help unionized industries, that's tough luck."
. . . . but Obama certainly appreciated the votes (He won by only 51% or 52%). People are just so stupid that they do not think these matters through; they simply cannot project the end result and all of the considerations in these political votes, and what it might accomplish. I voted for McCain; ubt Obama won . . . Hopefully he will live up to the challenges to remedy the problems.
Of course, Laura Bush thinks that George "did a heck of a good job" . . . hmmm . . . I guess that she can be forgiven for trying to rationalize it all. (George should have been impeached three years ago.)
Now we will see the reality of 'politics" with whatever Obama can manage to accomplish (or not). I strongly suspect that there are going to be a lot of disappointed Obama voters . . . we'll see whether he gets elected to a second term in office.
I didn't find out about Obama's intention to establish an "internal National Security Force" until AFTER the election.
What do we need such an "internal military force", as large as our "standing military forces", for? We certainly do not need such a force for "anti-terrorisom protection" . . . and the Contitution specifically PROHIBITS such "internal military forces" by the Federal Government. The states, with their National Guards, are responsible for protection within the respective states. (Of course the Fed gov't is using the states' National Guards to subsidize our standing army in foreign wars.) The politicians tend to "bend and twist" everything, such as the use of the national guard.
Well, it is going to be an "interesting trip" with Obama at the helm.
12-29-2008 @ 10:42AM
soccerced said...
What newspaper unions the Midwest might have 3 or 4 newspaper unions left. They have been crushed by the owners here starting in the mid 70's. Madison, WI lost theirs in the late 70's.
12-29-2008 @ 3:51PM
Don York said...
I hope ALL UNIONS go broke, they should be abolished. Nothing but Mafia Crooks
12-29-2008 @ 11:31PM
Al said...
Its Common Sense. Name one thing a Union can do for you, that you cant do yourself ? Just one. Thats why the mfging of Autos works so much better in the South, without the Clashes with Management over BS, Stupid Issues ! The bailout money goes to the companies - not the Unions #1. #2 - You have to have sales to create production. No sales - no production - no jobs. And the kicker, they no longer have the Job Banks that prevented layoffs or paid for them in the past. Nothing at all that would create or guarantee jobs - just the opposite. Duh !
12-30-2008 @ 3:17AM
Gary H said...
It would make one bit of difference if I refuted each one of your anti-union comments! Most of you have been brainwashed into thinking that you have it made in our country of Free Enterprise! What could I ever say that would persuade your thoughts in a different direction. Maybe a decent wage, health care, or even a retirement program that isn't a sham. Just remember when the the Unions are largely gone so are your wages, and benefit's. There won't be a wage base to pay you from, and most of you couldn't negotiate an individual contract, for your services, if it hit you square in the face.