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:
- I didn’t borrow the teapot
- The teapot is not broken, AND
- The teapot was broken when I borrowed it.
That is exactly the game the UAW is playing by simultaneously arguing:
- We don’t get paid more than non-UAW auto workers
- We can’t possibly accept a pay cut to non-UAW levels, AND
- 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