On Sept. 26, President Joe Biden visited the picket lines in Detroit, supporting autoworkers and promoting their demands. Members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union have been on strike since Sept. 14, demanding a 40 percent pay increase, a 32-hour work week with 40-hour pay, inflation benefits, and the return of pensions.
In case you missed the news, here’s what President Biden said to the union workers: “Folks, look, one thing is real simple—I’m going to be very brief—the fact of the matter is that you guys, the UAW—you saved the automobile industry back in 2008 and before. You made a lot of sacrifices. You gave up a lot. And the companies were in trouble. But now they’re doing incredibly well. And guess what? You should be doing incredibly well too. It’s a simple proposition. Folks, stick with it, because you deserve the significant raise you need and other benefits. Let’s get back what we lost, OK?”
This is a first for the White House. The White House has historically always chosen not to be directly involved in labor and union strikes, and there are plenty of reasons for that. First and foremost is the simple fact that you don’t need the White House meddling in business matters, especially labor unions.
With the president standing on the picket lines, endorsing the demands of auto workers, the White House loses its neutrality.
And when the president of the United States stands on a picket line, he takes a side, and he therefore loses the ability to compromise—for both sides—or the sake of the U.S. economy.
The U.S. president should not blatantly support unions when 28 of the states have right-to-work laws in their state constitution or by statute. Right-to-work laws limit unions’ power. Such laws also limit mandatory union membership and prevent contracts requiring the hiring of only unionized workers. It’s easy to see how union rules and regulations get out of control. Mandatory union membership for employees is a racket, and so is mandatory docking of employees’ pay for union dues.
Granted, the White House is stating that President Biden is the most pro-union president in U.S. history, and that’s why he went to Detroit; but that is not true. Look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt if you want an example. FDR loved unions, but he kept his personal opinions to himself, even during intense economic turmoil.
So did Teddy Roosevelt, who helped broker the end to a strike in 1902. Neither of them went public with his assertions or walked the picket lines.
The White House should not attempt to influence business economics by using political power, and the White House should not utilize labor unions and mass employment to gain politically.
Regardless, capturing the union vote will be a struggle for Democrats. It’s been a tight fit for decades. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 44 percent of union household votes. When Donald Trump won Michigan in 2016, he received 40 percent of union household votes. Hillary Clinton had 53 percent.
A piercing editorial from the Chicago Tribune, published Sept. 26, stated: “An outsider looking without political prejudice at those requests would conclude they will damage Detroit and offer a serious boost to the likes of non-unionized Tesla, as well as Rivian, the electric trucks manufacturer in Normal, Illinois. Tesla and Rivian, to name but two of the global players in the EV market, would have a big cost advantage if the UAW gets what it is asking for. Why would a president take sides like that?”
Steven Rattner, who was President Barack Obama’s auto czar, also chimed in, criticizing President Biden for supporting auto workers, stating: “For him to be going on a picket line is outrageous. There’s no precedent for it. The tradition of the president is to stay neutral in these things.”
As the strike continues, economic losses are nearing $3 billion. The last thing the U.S. economy needs is the president of the United States prompting more economic dysfunction.
