Friday, January 09, 2009


I'm sure everyone has noticed how the headlines on news stories sometimes are jarringly discordant with the content of the stories themselves. Exhibit for today is here from the Toronto Star. The headline: "GM, Chrysler bailout bans strikes". The actual article, though, notes these two things: "Provisions of General Motors' and Chrysler's $17.4 billion (U.S.) in federal loans automatically places them in default if union workers go on strike. ... The UAW isn't a party to the deal ....".

See that? Strikes aren't actually "banned" -- the UAW hasn't signed anything giving up the right to strike. But GM and Chrysler are fucked if they let a strike go ahead. Which means, really, the potency of a UAW strike has been massively increased.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I found amusing how backwards the headline was.

No comments: