In the 1980s, model Kelly LeBrock was widely ridiculed for telling viewers of a television commercial for Pantene conditioner, “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.”
A lot of jokes went around for that one, ranging from, “We hate you because you think you’re beautiful” to “No, we hate you because you’re stupid.”
The latter may have been closer to the truth. LeBrock married, and later divorced, Steven Seagal, who also wasn’t the brightest bulb in the universe.
I was thinking about that goofy commercial Friday as I was puzzling over the efforts in Congress (or lack of effort) to keep our auto industry from collapsing.
It’s a tough issue. I’m not a fan of giving money to companies like GM that kept cranking out little but SUVs until the bottom fell out of the business because that’s where it made the most money.
But I also believe that letting GM, Ford or Chrysler fail by doing nothing is not the answer.
I would like to see government take a minimalist approach. Let’s give the auto companies some help, but let’s not try to reinvent the industry in one fell swoop.
Nor is this the best time for Congress to try to toss out our collective bargaining system.
That’s where LeBrock comes in.
Whether we wanted to admit it or not, we did hate her because she was physically beautiful and because she acted as if she deserved to be beautiful and to collect all the unearned adoration that comes with good genes, exercise and a skilled surgeon.
Now we’re doing the same thing to organized labor.
A lot of folks these days hate union members because they make more money than we do.
We saw it in the Boeing Co.’s Machinists strike. Lots of folks looked at the deal the company was offering and were astounded that the Machinists stayed out as long as they did. They were further astounded that many union members appeared to grudgingly accept a final offer with decent pay increases, some bonus checks and solid health and pension benefits.
Union members said they were trying to share in the jetmaker’s hugely profitable success and to make sure that the young people just joining the union would have a bright future.
But that didn’t sit well with many folks struggling to just hang on to their jobs and living paycheck to paycheck.
Some members of Congress seemed to feel the same way about unions when they insisted that UAW members accept much lower pay and benefits for a bailout deal.
I read somewhere that autoworkers make $28 an hour. I don’t mind telling you that that’s more than I make and I’ve been working for nearly 40 years.
But I’m not griping. I love what I do and I’m here doing it by choice. I don’t hate the autoworkers and I don’t hate the Machinists. If the Machinists weren’t here, I would probably make less than I do now and so would you.
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger accused some of the senators who blocked emergency loans from the automakers of trying to “pierce the heart” of organized labor.
I have no idea what their intentions were, but I do know that members of Congress are the last people I want messing around with the collective bargaining system during late-night negotiations — especially not as a side issue to corporate finances.
A colleague pointed out to me that Congress passed a trillion-dollar bailout bill for the banks with no discussion about cutting bankers’ salaries, but couldn’t get past anything involving unions without wanting to limit their income.
The autoworkers need to help their companies. They may need to do a lot more than keep their promise to defer required health-care payments. But that isn’t for Congress to decide.
Unlike LeBrock, the union members weren’t born to better pay; they negotiated for it.
We shouldn’t hate them because they make more money than we do.
Mike Benbow: 425-339-3459, benbow@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
