They Should Have Been Lawyers

At some point in every law school, students are taught the old lawyer’s trick of “inconsistent pleadings.” The classic example of this involves a case where someone is accused to borrowing someone’s teapot and breaking it. The (perfectly legal) defense can simultaneously be:

  1. I didn’t borrow the teapot
  2. The teapot is not broken, AND
  3. The teapot was broken when I borrowed it.

That is exactly the game the UAW is playing by simultaneously arguing:

  1. We don’t get paid more than non-UAW auto workers
  2. We can’t possibly accept a pay cut to non-UAW levels, AND
  3. We have already agreed to reduce our pay to non-UAW levels.

The UAW is wasting their talent on the assembly line. They should have all been lawyers.

Found on Heritage Foundation Foundry

About these ads

Leave a comment

Filed under Heritage.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s