Borderline Double Talk

If Corporate America ever wonders why some people don't trust a thing about them, a recent story in In These Times offers a classic example of why. In an article by David Lindroff, General Motors comes off as a hypocritical behemoth of double talk.

What a difference a border makes. General Motors executives say soaring health costs in their U.S. plants are forcing them to seek health benefits give-backs from unionized workers, yet they insist that national healthcare is not an appropriate solution for America. As company spokeswoman Sherri Woodruff puts it, "GM thinks there has to be closer cooperation between the government and private sector, but we don't advocate a single-payer system for the U.S."

OK, so far, so good. This sounds like the same line parroted by most American corporations. But then the other shoe drops...

Yet just across the Detroit River in Ontario, the company's subsidiary...strongly endorses Canada's national health system. "The Canadian plan has been a significant advantage for investing in Canada," says GM Canada spokesman David Patterson, noting that in the United States, GM spends $1,400 per car on health benefits.

So, on one side of the border we have GM acting as a cheerleader for single-payer healthcare, yet on the other side of the border, they advocate against it. Sounds extremely hypocritical, doesn't it?

One might think GM would jettison the double talk since many analysts have predicted recently that the U.S. side of GM is in a bit of financial trouble. Their profit margin has been ever shrinking because of low sales and high costs. Rather than pursuing more union give-backs, they could save a huge wad of dough if America, like Canada, switched to universal health care.

Maybe GM Canada representatives could travel south of the border to explain this concept to their U.S. counterparts! Do you think they'd listen?