The Case for Kenosha (Page 3)

Obama makes a point of saying he does not want to "run" car companies. "The sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be," he argues. Unfortunately, if the government simply throws money at manufacturing firms and walks away, there are no guarantees that even the most skilled workers will keep their jobs or that their industry will make its future in the United States.

That became evident when Chrysler's lawyers filed the bankruptcy paperwork in which officials proposed to sell off--or, in all probability, close--eight Midwestern factories, including the Kenosha plant. An argument will be made that some of these plants are aging and are not on line to manufacture new or essential products. But if this country is ever going to get serious about building a green economy, the best place to start is with the efficient plants and well-trained workforces of the Big Three. And the Kenosha plant was poised to be a lead facility in Chrysler's effort to produce advanced, fuel-efficient engines.

"We've had hundreds of millions of dollars invested since 2000 to modernize this plant. We have new machinery. We have workers who were pioneers in team-based production and have been getting ready to produce the next generation of engines," says Local 72 president Glenn Stark. In 2007, when Chrysler negotiated more flexible work rules at the plant in return for a promise to produce the company's new six-cylinder engine in Kenosha, Local 72 members agreed. "We knew Chrysler was having a hard time. We made sacrifices to help the company," explained Stark. "Now Chrysler's reorganizing. It's finally got some money, thanks to President Obama, and we're as ready as any plant in the country to move into this new era. But they're telling us the Phoenix isn't coming here."

Where is that new engine going to be produced? Some will be made at a Chrysler facility in Trenton, Michigan. The rest will be produced at a plant under construction in Saltillo, Mexico, where wage-and-benefits demands are dramatically lower. GM has similar plans; the company circulated an outline for restructuring that would nearly double the proportion of GM cars sold in the United States but produced at plants outside the country.

You don't want to get UAW members started on NAFTA and the complicated web of trade policies that have devastated their industry. These workers are not naïve; they know that autos and auto parts are produced in Mexico, and that this will continue to be the case. But what they can't figure out, says John Drew, a former Chrysler employee who works for the UAW, is why, with the government preparing to spend billions of dollars to save the auto industry, Chrysler is preparing to abandon a high-performing US engine plant and move the work to another country. That's not just a betrayal of American autoworkers, says Drew. "That's a betrayal of American taxpayers."

Drew is onto something. Washington began spending trillions of taxpayer dollars under Bush to save the economy and has continued to do so under Obama. But even the most ham-handed of these interventions involve policy choices: Wall Street versus Main Street, firms seen as "too big to fail" versus those that are not so graced, old economy versus new. No one really expected Bush to "get it," let alone to do the right thing. But Obama, the former community organizer who campaigned in auto plants as he sought the presidency, is supposed to be different. He has spoken well and wisely about how "the fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America's future." But how can US manufacturing survive when Obama agrees to cut loose billions of dollars and then muses, "I don't think that we should micro-manage" the corporations that collect that money?

The president may not be able to save every auto plant and every job. But if he can't save plants like the one in Kenosha--or, more precisely, if he will not choose to save them--then he will be signaling that his approach is hands-on when it comes to writing bailout checks but hands-off when it comes to what is done with them. That signal would be a dark and dangerous one, not merely for those who may cling to pieces of the old economy but for those who imagine that a new economy will provide manufacturing jobs and the family-supporting pay and benefits that have traditionally gone with them. On the other hand, if Obama and his team signal that government investment must yield tangible and smart results--factories saved, jobs retained and industries retooled--then he will begin outlining a policy for keeping the auto industry viable and, more generally, for ensuring the future of American manufacturing.

As Kuzel speaks, workers and their families rally to save their plant. A little boy waves a sign that asks, Where Will I Work When I Grow Up?

"People may think this is just about Kenosha or the UAW. But that's what it's really about," says Kuzel, motioning toward the sign. "We're about to decide where America's going to work when it grows up."

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.