This morning, my Dad sent me a story from the Detroit News about the American Axle strike that's been on for over 12 weeks now in Three Rivers, Michigan, a town that's near and dear to our whole family. My grandparents bought a cottage there in the 1970s, though the strike won't much affect vacationers, unless it's in the form of having fewer Main Street shops to visit on a rainy day. For those who call Three Rivers home on a year-round, work-a-day basis, however, the strike is having a widespread affect, which the Detroit News article demonstrates well. Rob and I helped start a fair trade store in downtown Three Rivers in 2003 and it's still alive, though certainly feeling the pinch of the strike along with other downtown merchants who have been giving vast amounts of their own time, creativity and money toward revitalization of the historic district and beyond.
I've heard several people criticizing the strikers, saying that in the end, they'll all lose their jobs and that they're being greedy as the highest paid employees in the area. But Rob and I are still left with the question: why should a company that is consistently turning a profit (even in a flailing automotive industry) be allowed to cut its manufacturing employees' pay in half? Are the CEOs, who could certainly thrive on half their salary more than an hourly worker could, willing to make the same sacrifice if such budget cuts are indeed necessary? Twelve weeks of $200/week strike pay and standing at the plant's entrances in all kinds of weather doesn't look like greed to me. It looks like a desperate attempt not to allow corporate executives to send us back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution.
