On the surface, the plan seems logical. However, in reality few companies go through the pain of restructuring without a great deal of external pressure being applied. I have worked in various manufacturing plants over the past decade, and I have learned that no one, including upper management, likes change. The only time I have witnessed a successful restructuring is when a plant has been under the direct threat of being closed permanently. I have also seen plants fail to restructure under these circumstances. Therefore, hopes that the Steel Industry can restructure itself into a successful global competitor, while the government fends off competition through temporary tariffs are really just an illusion. The industry does need to restructure to remain competitive, but the degree of change that is needed will only come when pressure from competition remains. .
Unfortunately, the issues facing the industry did not come about overnight and cannot be blamed on any individual or single group. Contributing factors date back as far as 1901 when the group known as United States Steel (USS) was formed. This unification was meant to decrease competitive pressure by merging some of the country's largest steel producers who held over two-thirds of the nations steel capacity in its combined ranks. There was much debate as to whether this move created a monopoly. Surely, this joining did not promote efficiency within the industry. The Chairman of USS, Elbert Gary, "strove unceasingly to obtain industry wide stabilization, especially in matters of price policy" (Tiffany 7). Gary disagreed with economists who stated that creative destruction "is not only normal, but healthy" and "leads to greater benefits to the economy as a whole" (Tiffany 7). Gary's goal was to keep prices at a controlled level using any means possible, not to build an efficient, competitive industry.
The Federal Government has not been innocent in leading the industry to where it is today either.