Category: Things this old man thinks about

UAW launches historic strike against Big Three automakers
Some 2,600 nonstriking General Motors and Ford workers in Kansas and Michigan face temporary unemployment due to fallout from striking plants

The Washington Post Sept 15, 2023

United Auto Workers are on strike against the BIG 3 US Automotive companies, certainly news worthy but it is an interesting contrast to the long history of UAW strikes against US automotive companies. Here is an NYT article that chronicles that history. My interest comes from a career with Ford Motor Company, which began as an hourly UAW represented employee and later included several years as management in labor relations. I still have my honorable withdrawal card from the UAW when I became a salaried employee; assurance that I could return to my hourly job should I fail.

My first strike experience was as a production foreman in 1967:
..the United Auto Workers (UAW) union called a company-wide strike on Sept. 6, 1967, when the current UAW-Ford contract expired, which temporarily put a halt to auto/truck production nationwide. 150,000-160,000 Ford workers represented by the UAW went on strike, which continued until Oct 22, 1967. It was said that Ford lost more than 600,00 vehicles in all divisions due to the strike.
Ironically, for salaried production employees, those 46 days were a respite from the constant rigors of production. Unlike striking union workers , we continued to get paid while performing mostly busy work. Any utilization of salaried employees to perform union worker’s tasks became an issue impeding any settlement agreement. US automotive companies have had a long standing adversarial relationship with the UAW. Strikes provide a public stage to demonstrate latent anger and dissatisfaction, violence was no stranger.

Salaried employees, supporting of the company were placed in the uncomfortable position of discreetly cheering for the union’s success, particularly in regard to wages and benefits. Whatever the union achieved typically became the benchmark for increases in salary and benefits of salaried employees. We were as anxious to hear details of settlement agreements as were union employees.

The current strike is a departure from the union UAW’s usual strategy of pattern bargaining. In pattern bargaining, the union would target one big 3 auto company to strike. Whatever agreements made with the target company became the pattern for settlement with the other two companies. This produced some historic agreements and created considerable difficulties for big 3 automotive companies, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation and Chrysler Corporation.

BIG 3 US Automakers are now GM, Ford and Stellantis. The worldwide automobile manufacturing landscape has changed dramatically since 1976 https://chat.openai.com/share/dde9f55d-fa62-48d4-a1c6-b1cb6491b795 .

Union membership in the US has declined significantly.

The current strike is certainly newsworthy but it falls far short of historic proportions . The headline focuses on 2,600 idled non-striking employees and does not mention 26,000+ striking employees walking picket lines.

This post intends to illustrate the character of many news reports today; headlines providing convenient facts without relevant context in order to shape public opinion. As is usually the case, there is a lot more to the story.
Always look behind the headlines.

STILL ON THE JOURNEY

…there is a moral right, grounded in autonomy, for competent and informed individuals who have decided after careful consideration of the relevant facts, that their continuing life is not worth living, to non-interference with requests for assistance with suicide or voluntary euthanasia.

from report prepared by members of the Royal Society of Canada in 2011 

A recent article in Christianity Today stimulated some thinking about euthanasia. A disturbing article, it focuses on euthanasia in Canada, but, is prescient for our culture. I encourage you to read it.

It has occurred to me, for the church, euthanasia is an ideograph, evoking negative emotional response without serious consideration of cultural and theological implications. The best argument many Christians have against euthanasia is — ‘it’s wrong” — hardly convincing in our secular culture and increasingly inadequate for Christians today.
While pondering euthanasia, two personal experiences came to mind:

Forty plus years ago, serving as an elder in our church, I made a hospital visit to a friend and church member who was seriously ill. She had a long history of medical, emotional and spiritual difficulties. Despite her relatively young age she was struggling and her current condition, by all appearances, was life threatening. She was unconsoled despite my attempt to comfort her with prayer and words of assurance. With pleading eyes and beguiling words she asked me to get her medications that had been placed out of her reach; explaining that she had decided to end her life by overdosing.
I was shocked by the request and rejected her decision out of hand. After a long conversation she relented and promised not to follow through.

Thoughts about that encounter:
* I remember, for a fleeting moment, it seemed like a reasonable solution to an “impossible” situation.
* My “It’s wrong” belief left no option but refusal.
* Considering today’s cultural landscape, would I respond differently today?
* Would I ever consider MAID (medical assistance in dying) Why/Why not?

More recently, Ann and I, with our daughter’s family, were in attendance as Sugar, their 18 year old dog, was euthanized. I was not prepared for the emotional and spiritual depth of that event. My only other experience witnessing a pet put down was when I was 4-5 years old watching in horror as a police officer shoot my crazed puppy. In contrast, the melding of our family’s love, grief, sadness, lament, doubt, regret, and prayer birthed a profoundly sacred experience; a cherished memory. The decision was a merciful and loving act.

Some general observations and questions :

• First, to be very clear, in my opinion, animal and human euthanasia are not equivalent.

• The church is largely silent on euthanasia, Mostly, I attribute that to a perception, that euthanasia, obviously immoral, is not a priority.

• If, “it is wrong”, arguments are insufficient for our secular culture; what argument/s are persuasive?
  For Christians, arguments that “euthanasia is unbiblical” are lean because the Bible is largely silent on euthanasia.

..the argument against euthanasia from the biblical point of view comes down to an argument from silence—a legitimate one. Euthanasia was plainly possible in biblical times. It could well have been included in the ample ethical standards of the Scriptures, but it does not appear. It is not condoned or encouraged even when suggested or requested. And obvious alternatives to euthanasia are found in temporary resurrections and healings and in the benefits of endured sufferings.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1976/february-27/mercy-killingis-it-biblical.html

• Christians generally reject euthanasia, however, increased secular influence has created fertile soil for acceptance by Christians. For example, personal autonomy, a key concept of our cultural ethos, is basic in justifying euthanasia. Personal autonomy is a significant challenge to the health of the body of Christ.

• Already common and rarely objectionable to Christians, “passive euthanasia,” involves a refusal to use life-sustaining medical equipment to prolong a life when there is no prospect of recovery.
• Language bolsters a sympathetic perception toward euthanasia, i.e. “mercy killing” —”good death”. It is easy to apply words and rationale usually reserved for animals to humans.— “to spare them pain and suffering” — “they are seriously ill”— “it is a comfort to be with them during the final moments” — ” their quality of life’s diminished as they grow very old”
• Cursory understandings of palliative and hospice care, contribute to misunderstanding about euthanasia.
  
• To what extent, if any, does our aversion to death contribute to euthanasia?

The most crucial task is for people to create a living world where death seems abnormal and accidental. They must create a living world where life is so full, so secure, and so rich with possibilities that it gives no hint of death and deprivation. . . . According to this duty, a person must try to live in such a way that he or she does not carry the marks of death, does not exhibit any hint of the failure of life.

McGill, Death and Life

In writing this post, it occurred to me that euthanasia is just one of many subjects, which after some thought and often serious study, I have presumed understanding sufficient to render it settled and archive in the recesses of my brain. For me, euthanasia as been unarchived and is definitely no longer settled.

STILL ON THE JOURNEY