What kind of man would break his word?

Just imagine yourself back a few years, back when a job wasn’t that hard to find and you could usually have a choice of job offers. Imagine that you chose to work for a local company that offered good benefits — health coverage, sick pay, paid holidaysand vacation time, plus a retirement plan.

Way back in the day, of course, most employers offered these things. But let’s say you chose a job that appealed to you because of the benefits.

So you started work, settled in, got married, bought a house, started raising kids, became a contributing member of your community.

In that way-back day, a job usually lasted until retirement age if you wanted it to, and so you worked hard, saved a little money, and when the time came you retired, ready to do a little traveling, visit the grandkids, all that good stuff.

But what if you then discovered that your old company now has financial troubles and needs a loan to make it through the next few months, but the bank won’t do it unless you give back a big chunk of your hard-earned benefits?

The way I see it, those benefits were promised as part of your compensation; you accepted that job based in part on those promises and your wages and benefits were earned over many years of hard work. To demand years later that you give any of them back makes a mockery of those promises.

There is a small group of Republican senators in Washington who would seem to have no respect for promises or the contracts that contain them. Despite pleas from their own President, despite widely acknowledged dire consequences if the American auto manufacturers fail for want of a $15 billion loan agreed to by the House of Representatives and the President of the United States, those senators have blocked passage of the enabling legislation in the Senate.

Why would they put their own party — and President — in position to be blamed for an economic catastrophe that would make previous bailouts look like small potatoes?

Here’s the deal they offer: If the auto companies will break their promises to their workers, who happen to be members of the United Auto Workers union, these honorable men will agree to allow the companies to borrow money to get through the next three or four months.

Generous to a fault, you say?

Notwithstanding that the union has, over the past four difficult years, made significant wage and benefit concessions to help the auto manufacturers stay profitable, the senators want more this time around.

They already got the unions to accept workers’ wages being reduced to that paid workers in foreign-owned non-union plants (located, interestingly, in the states represented by said senators); the unions already agreed to accept reductions in pension benefits. But the senators now want those reductions put in place this coming year (drill here! drill now!).

According to a report in The New York Times,

In a statement Thursday night, the union said it was "prepared to agree that any restructuring plan should ensure that the wages and benefits of workers at the domestic automakers should be competitive with those paid by the foreign transplants. But we also recognized that this would take time to work out and implement" using programs like buyouts and early retirement offers to bring in new workers at lower rates.

Of course the whole gambit is dishonest.

First of all, while the senators have every right to try to impose conditions on the auto manufacturers who need the loan, they have absolutely no business, so far as I can see, inserting themselves into a company-union relationship. Labor negotiations should involve management and labor, period.

Second, let’s face it: In the end, it’s all about breaking up the union. As even the famously understated pundit David Gergen said recently, there has always been “a tension” between unions and the Republican party, but this is going way too far.

Why, I wanted to know, do Republicans hate unions? I thought it was as simple as wanting cheaper labor. The anti-UAW folks are fond of insisting that auto workers are paid over $70 an hour. That would be, well, a lie.

Here’s how they figure it: Take all the wages paid and add the cost to the company of all the benefits, and then add the cost of all the pensions and benefits being paid to retirees and divide by the number of active workers. Presto.

So it can’t be about making current labor cheaper, though a case could certainly be made that they want to get rid of workers’ pensions and benefits.

U.S. Senators are paid a decent salary — over $188,000 plus benefits that include state of the art health care — and are entitled to full retirement at age 62 after five years of service. Nice.

Of course, they are much more important than factory workers.

No, I really do think it’s all about getting rid of those pesky unions.

Now, you could argue that union power has been on the wane for several years, but I’d point out that American wages have been on the wane for the same period; make of that what you like.

A very knowledgeable political historian friend insists it’s more complex, as follows: Unions are a significant force in the Democratic party, notably providing fundraising and manpower during elections, and thus help the Democrats win; ergo, if unions can be eliminated the Republicans have a better chance.

I wonder.

Whatever may be motivating those who would get rid of unions, we now know this: Promises don’t mean a thing to them.