• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did unions bankrupt Detroit

Did unions bankrupt Detroit

  • Yes, unions killed Detroit

    Votes: 11 35.5%
  • No, unions are not at fault

    Votes: 20 64.5%

  • Total voters
    31
Detroit city wasn't assembling cars for most of the last century.
 
Detroit could not compete with the cheap labor. They did toe the line and decided to lower wages in a country that no longer feels it needs unions or at least unions with any kind of negotiating power. Now everyone should be happy that we have added a whole new generation of the working insecure and poor to our rolls.

You are not learning the Detroit lesson. Unions negotiated themselves right out of a job.
 
You are not learning the Detroit lesson. Unions negotiated themselves right out of a job.

Yes, because unions are at an all time low as far as numbers and power. That was by design. Not really a good thing though because trends for workers as far as wages and benefits have gone down the shooter. At one time companies would do whatever they had to in order to keep unions out so that pulled up wages and benefits for many non-union workers. There really is no motivation to do that anymore. Keep following the trends.
 
when manufacturers can go virtually anywhere in the world and force U.S. workers to compete with workers whose cost of living is only a fraction of theirs, that doesn't work (for the workers, that is -- but works beautifully for the super wealthy and vulture capitalists). There's a race to the bottom and it has accelerated with the deline of unionization ... blaming unions is a tactic used by those ripping us off and too many people buy it ...
 
you cannot blame solely the unions for what happened to Detroit. there were multiple factors that caused it happen
 
Nobody has said that they were the only cause, but they most certainly were a significant cause, perhaps the most significant cause. Why do you think that dodging that fact makes the argument wrong? Unions have demonstrably given massive amounts of money and influence to getting Democratic politicians elected for the express reason of funding and supporting their agenda. There is no question about this whatsoever. In fact, without their funding and influence, it's questionable whether these politicians would have gotten elected at all.

Detroit has problems because they have all of the financial requirements that they had before being a right-to-work state. Changing to right-to-work doesn't invalidate all of the union contracts they've written over the years.

Why don't you understand that?

Sure they did. The question the OP raised was, "Did unions bankrupt Detroit"? Most of the posters who apparently are anti-union folks like yourself have said yes, they did. But they would be wrong.

Unions were not the only cause for Detroit's financial troubles. They may have been the leading cause, but they weren't the only cause. So, no matter how many times you guys try to spin this in your attempts to lay blame squarely on the (auto) unions, you cannot blame Detroit's problems squarely on them. There are several reasons Detroit is in the position it's in. Pensions sought and received through union efforts that weren't renegotiated over time were just part of the problem.
 
Sure they did. The question the OP raised was, "Did unions bankrupt Detroit"? Most of the posters who apparently are anti-union folks like yourself have said yes, they did. But they would be wrong.

Unions were not the only cause for Detroit's financial troubles. They may have been the leading cause, but they weren't the only cause. So, no matter how many times you guys try to spin this in your attempts to lay blame squarely on the (auto) unions, you cannot blame Detroit's problems squarely on them. There are several reasons Detroit is in the position it's in. Pensions sought and received through union efforts that weren't renegotiated over time were just part of the problem.

I don't think anyone could deny that their shrinking tax base had a devastating effect on the city. They're down over 1,000,000 people. In a city that has an income tax, that's devastating.
 
I don't think anyone could deny that their shrinking tax base had a devastating effect on the city. They're down over 1,000,000 people. In a city that has an income tax, that's devastating.

Now, we're getting somewhere. This we can agree on. That wasn't so hard now, was it?
 
Sure they did. The question the OP raised was, "Did unions bankrupt Detroit"? Most of the posters who apparently are anti-union folks like yourself have said yes, they did. But they would be wrong.

Unions were not the only cause for Detroit's financial troubles. They may have been the leading cause, but they weren't the only cause. So, no matter how many times you guys try to spin this in your attempts to lay blame squarely on the (auto) unions, you cannot blame Detroit's problems squarely on them. There are several reasons Detroit is in the position it's in. Pensions sought and received through union efforts that weren't renegotiated over time were just part of the problem.

Had it not been for union influence on the politics of Detroit, they almost certainly could have worked out the rest of the problems. You can keep repeating your pro-union nonsense all you want and asserting that everyone who disagrees must hate unions, but the facts are the facts. The biggest single influence on the bankruptcy of Detroit are the unions. Deal with it.
 
I don't think anyone could deny that their shrinking tax base had a devastating effect on the city. They're down over 1,000,000 people. In a city that has an income tax, that's devastating.

That's true, but we have to ask ourselves why the American automobile industry failed in the first place? Certainly, a lot of it was mismanagement and stupidity, they kept making cars that Americans didn't want to buy, but at least some of it was the cost, they were charging more for cars than they were worth, a lot of that was to pay off overpaid union workers. It always comes around to the unions. Had they not had to pay the union workers more, and granted, if they had a clue what kind of cars people wanted, then maybe the Detroit auto industry could have been saved and a million people wouldn't have left.

Of course, recognizing the reality, I'll just be called an anti-union activist or something. :roll:
 
That's true, but we have to ask ourselves why the American automobile industry failed in the first place? Certainly, a lot of it was mismanagement and stupidity, they kept making cars that Americans didn't want to buy, but at least some of it was the cost, they were charging more for cars than they were worth, a lot of that was to pay off overpaid union workers. It always comes around to the unions. Had they not had to pay the union workers more, and granted, if they had a clue what kind of cars people wanted, then maybe the Detroit auto industry could have been saved and a million people wouldn't have left.

Of course, recognizing the reality, I'll just be called an anti-union activist or something. :roll:

You won't be called that by me. I agree with you. The question really is: "Can we really blame the unions for those whopping pension and healthcare benefits for retirees? And for stupid work rules that strangle corporations and turn 8-hour days into 5?"

My answer is, "No, we really can't." The position GM management took was, "We don't want a strike. Let's settle this." Kinda' like a lazy parent spoiling a 3-year-old.
 
You won't be called that by me. I agree with you. The question really is: "Can we really blame the unions for those whopping pension and healthcare benefits for retirees? And for stupid work rules that strangle corporations and turn 8-hour days into 5?"

My answer is, "No, we really can't." The position GM management took was, "We don't want a strike. Let's settle this." Kinda' like a lazy parent spoiling a 3-year-old.

Of course we can! Just because the very existence of the unions relies on getting the most benefits for their members, that doesn't mean that what they actually do is valid or respectable. They buy politicians through voting blocs and financial contributions, unions have some of the most aggressive lobbyists around and a lot of politicians feel that if they want to get elected, they have to get union money, regardless of the deals they have to sign with the devil. Therefore, liberals have traditionally gotten into bed with the unions and then kicked the bills down the road, just so they can get into office, and now that there's no more road to kick the can down, we're seeing how union and liberal politics really work. We absolutely can blame the unions for operating this way, just like we can blame the liberal politicians for trading political integrity for union money.

And when it comes time to deal with a strike, most of those liberal politicians in office have already been paid for by union money, why do you think they roll over so easily?
 
Cities may go bankrupt because of private unions.

But that is only a small part of the tale. Detroit owes its public sector union workers lots and lots and lots of money they can never pay.

Detroit is broken because Democratic politicians offered up wonderful sweetheart deals to public unions. A private union can break an industry. It takes democratic politicians and public sector unions to really screw up whole cities, whole states, and whole nations.

Yes it was public sector unions and their lapdogs the Democratic party politicians. Plundering the taxpayer only works until the taxpayer realizes he is free to move. That is why Alabama is filling up.
 
Last edited:
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.

The focus should be on all involved. Poor management, however, should top the list if anything does. Odd how some always go toward criticism of workers and not management and leadership. Though even those likely would end to all the reasons for what happened.
 
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.

detroit has been facing problems since 1951,when their population since its peak in 1950 has been on a constant decline,between taxpayers leaving the state,business going under due to extreme competition from govt protected big 3,and unfriendly bussiness environment.

detroits success wasnt from chrysler gm and ford,it was from many different manufacturors pre ww2,most of which died post ww2 because theycouldnt compete with no govt backing against govt backed big 3,who to this day are the most subsidized auto manufacturors in the world.companies like amc,nash packard etc fueled detroit,when they went under or got absorbed,the city lost mostits base.


further when detroit got big,it started becoming unfriendly towards bussiness,many manufacturors left for other states.heck in texas alone there are ford plants building trucks,most american produced autos arent made in detroit at all.


it is the tail of a city that has been failing for over 60 years,with its leadership denying a problem to its public while kicking the can down the road,hoping the problem doesnt affect them but blows up on the guy who replaces him.
 
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.

I think they played a part. The two biggest factors I think are:

- the mortgage industry crisis of 2008 that reverberated into all industries that depended on consumer borrowing.
- the high cost of gasoline also from 2008 due to it holding an oligopoly on personal transportation, OPEC and the oil futures market middleman created a disincentive for people to buy new cars, especially the lower mpg cars that made up most of Detroit's available enventory.
- people were laid off and moved to other cities and although "the US auto industry has reboounded", its a leaner meaner industry and besides, many of the people who moved started lives elsewhere and never moved back.

What I don't particularly support is rescuing the City of Detroit. I was watching Ed Schultz over the weekend who had these grandios ideas on a federal effort to rescue ad rebuild Detroit. My question is why? If people don't want to live there then why force the matter? I can think of a lot of places I'd rather live and imagine I'm not all that different than others I that respect. I also imagine a lot f people lived there mainly because that's where their job was. To me it makes more sense to create the economic opportunity where the people are instead of trying to encourage people to move back to a freezing cold, run down environment.

I do think yanking the retirement from under former city employees and those who worked hard all of their lives living in a city they probably didnt particular enjoy and now are about to retire is tragic. I'd try to find a way to help those people in a way that doesn't try to force revitalization of city that to be honest only had a major city population because that's where the economic opportunity was. I cannot support some huge effort to rebuilt Detroit when due to geography cannot deliver the quality of life it's former residents might preferred outside of work and entertainment options for which their money created a market. With the same money I bet former Detroit residents would have better enjoyed in Nevada, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Georgia or Florida. If someone wants to pour a ton of money into rebuilding Detroit as a US manufacturing center, it makes more sense to invite its former residents to be a part of doing so someplace nice to live...if at all.
 
Had it not been for union influence on the politics of Detroit, they almost certainly could have worked out the rest of the problems. You can keep repeating your pro-union nonsense all you want and asserting that everyone who disagrees must hate unions, but the facts are the facts. The biggest single influence on the bankruptcy of Detroit are the unions. Deal with it.

I've never claimed to be pro-union. What I have said is unions aren't the sole cause of Detroit's economic problems. My only argument throughout this thread in that regard has been to try to get people to understand this. Were they a primary reason? Perhaps; very likely yes. But they were NOT the sole cause. The only folks who are being single-minded on this topic are those posters like yourself who can't seem to see beyond their anti-union bias, i.e., "the biggest single influence on the bankruptcy of Detroit are the unions".

Well, which is it? Are unions the "single influence" or are they the "biggest influence"? They can't be both.
 
I think they played a part. The two biggest factors I think are:

- the mortgage industry crisis of 2008 that reverberated into all industries that depended on consumer borrowing.
- the high cost of gasoline also from 2008 due to it holding an oligopoly on personal transportation, OPEC and the oil futures market middleman created a disincentive for people to buy new cars, especially the lower mpg cars that made up most of Detroit's available enventory.
- people were laid off and moved to other cities and although "the US auto industry has reboounded", its a leaner meaner industry and besides, many of the people who moved started lives elsewhere and never moved back.

What I don't particularly support is rescuing the City of Detroit. I was watching Ed Schultz over the weekend who had these grandios ideas on a federal effort to rescue ad rebuild Detroit. My question is why? If people don't want to live there then why force the matter? I can think of a lot of places I'd rather live and imagine I'm not all that different than others I that respect. I also imagine a lot f people lived there mainly because that's where their job was. To me it makes more sense to create the economic opportunity where the people are instead of trying to encourage people to move back to a freezing cold, run down environment.

I do think yanking the retirement from under former city employees and those who worked hard all of their lives living in a city they probably didnt particular enjoy and now are about to retire is tragic. I'd try to find a way to help those people in a way that doesn't try to force revitalization of city that to be honest only had a major city population because that's where the economic opportunity was. I cannot support some huge effort to rebuilt Detroit when due to geography cannot deliver the quality of life it's former residents might preferred outside of work and entertainment options for which their money created a market. With the same money I bet former Detroit residents would have better enjoyed in Nevada, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Georgia or Florida. If someone wants to pour a ton of money into rebuilding Detroit as a US manufacturing center, it makes more sense to invite its former residents to be a part of doing so someplace nice to live...if at all.

Great post.
 
Well, which is it? Are unions the "single influence" or are they the "biggest influence"? They can't be both.

No one has ever said that they were the only reason but they certainly are the largest reason. Unfortunately, there are lots of union supporters who act like just because they can find another problem in Detroit, that the unions are magically off the hook.

It doesn't work that way.
 
Great post.

Thanks. I think if there is a massive federal response to rescue Detroit under a US manufacturing argument, I can think of a lot of places far better suited than the upper Mid-West on the border with Canada. I say if at all, which is another discussion; pick a place with a better climate, where land is cheap but within a few hours of fun stuff to do, on an Interstate highway and convenient to an international shipping port. Then invite the people of Detroit to move there, which I'm sure many would enthusiastically do. I'd rather see it come from the auto industry instead of the government though.

Orlando, Florida a blip on the map nobody ever of until Disney built the world largest amusement park there. Today Orlando is one of the most important economic centers in America and the top tourist vacation destination in the world with about a half a dozen other theme parks build there to ride Disney's coattails, resorts and convenient to a cruise ship hub that transports vacationers to a from the Disney Resorts via high speed rail...oh never mind, scratch that last part. I just remembered, the Governor of Florida refused to let the Obama Administration's high speed system include Florida because it would cost the taxpayers of Florida too much money. Disney offered to pay any difference the state would otherwise have to incur but risking $0.00 was too much for the state of Florida to gamble on an Obama risky scheme.
 
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.
I've been hearing that it's racism that killed Detroit. More to come as I do a little more familiarizing...
 
Back
Top Bottom