Skip to main content

Filtering Climate Change Policy through Labor-Management Politics


Tesla is the world's largest manufacturer of electric vehicles. 

It is also the one corporate word that comes to mind when one hears the phrase "electric cars."

And it has a plant for making them in California. 

It was odd, then, that when President Biden held a press event specifically to tout his program for spurring American made EVs, there were corporate executives present, with great smiles: execs from GM, from Ford, and from the successor-corp. to Chrysler, now known as Stellantis. But nobody from Tesla. 

Heck, Ford's recent entry into this market is the Mach-E. But it doesn't make them in the US. It makes them in Mexico. Yet Ford is at the big Event and Tesla is not? 

Fortunately, Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, explained the reason for us.

"Well, these [GM, Ford, and Stellantis] are the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions."   

So it seems safe to infer that US EV policy under President Biden has a pro-union filter. 

Does it matter? Not terribly. Ideally the adoption of electric cars would be determined by supply and demand, but nobody in any position of importance really believes that. Nor of course did they believe that during the Trump years. 

In fact, one key distinction between Trump and the other 21st century Republican President, "W," is that under W, people in importance at least pretended to believe in the market as a mechanism for making important resource allocation decisions. Under Trump, the pretense dropped away. 

My guess is that we're seeing something analogous on the Democratic side. I don't believe that anyone in any position of importance under Biden, and slightly younger than him (I respect his old-school habits of thought) really gives a tinker's dam whether Tesla's plants are union organized. But I think it is their conventional piety, and they have to pretend to care.

Hence the snub of Tesla, and Psaki's attribution thereof to the influence of the UAW on this White House. 

In the near future, there will probably a Democratic administration as openly contemptuous of their party's historical alliance with unions and advocacy of collective bargaining as Trump's administration was of ... any principles at all. 

And then we will have conquered hypocrisy. May God have mercy on our souls. 

(I'll have something more to say about Tesla and electric cars soon.) 



Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryAugust 17, 2021 at 4:55 AM

    I don't know when I last saw the expression "tinker's dam" (or "damn"), so I looked it up in the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins and read:

    not worth a tinker's damn (dam). There are numerous old expressions, some dating back over 400 years, indicating the profanity of tinkers in general. The tinker, who takes his name from "tink," the sound of a hammer on metal, is remembered by 'to swear like a tinker' and 'not worth a tinker's curse,' among other sayings. Obviously, he threw 'damns' around so casually that they became meaningless, worthless, giving us the expression 'not worth a tinker's damn.' There have been attempts, however, to link the phrase to the little temporary 'dams' tinkers fashioned to hold solder in place when they repaired pots and pans.

    This explanation raises other questions. Were the little temporary dams worthless? And why did tinkers curse so much? Did they frequently hit their thumbs with their hammers? Enquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherAugust 17, 2021 at 5:08 AM

      Henry, although the dams clearly do have their ephemeral passing value, they don't last long enough to be bought or sold, so they don't have market value. So the phrase might be interpreted, "not worth a tinker's dam on eBay."

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more