Energy Dept lends $8B to Ford, Nissan, Tesla to develop fuel-ef...

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>I would say compromise with the company,but they had to be threaten with their life before they made any creative moves.They waited to late to decide they were in trouble. And they continued to act as if it was only managements fault problems were happening. Now they find themselves in real trouble. As far as the American people are concerned they continued to try and sell cars that weren't competitive knowing all the time much of it was their fault. They had what you call to much employee mentality which is f--k the company,f---k the customer what about meeeeeeee.

Google UAW consession and see just how closely we and the company have worked together over the years. Don't believe the hype, read it for yourself and see.

"As far as the American people are concerned they continued to try and sell cars that weren't competitive knowing all the time much of it was their fault."

Come on man. Lineworkers have nothing to do with R & D, design, product launch, pricing, ect ect. Autoworkers build what they are told to build. We have no input on products or there development. Your giving the Union workers far too much credit.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>Google UAW consession and see just how closely we and the company have worked together over the years. Don't believe the hype, read it for yourself and see.
"As far as the American people are concerned they continued to try and sell cars that weren't competitive knowing all the time much of it was their fault."
Come on man. Lineworkers have nothing to do with R & D, design, product launch, pricing, ect ect. Autoworkers build what they are told to build. We have no input on products or there development. Your giving the Union workers far too much credit.

Now we are starting to get some where. You are correct, the UAW members have nothing to do with the design unless you understand the cost of the UAW support package is billed into the car.Let's see here hum, insurance for life, pensions for life, pay without work, big dollars per hour, and demands every time your contract comes due,not to mention the cost of strikes. That doesn't have anything to do with design only everything to do with cost

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>I think nobody is perfect. Not GM, Ford, Toyota, and certainly not the UAW. I do not follow the reasoning that suggests that The UAW has acted in a manner that isn't benefitial for American workers. If so I'd love read how we have been.
I think that the word "compete" has been hijack as of late to mean outsource, consessions, termaination ect ect. The fact of the matter is that when you speak of the competion of American auto workers, those ppl are in fact third world individuals.
I posted the information that I posted to help illustrate the fact that no American workers can compete with wages at that low of a level. So lets agree not to speak of the third world anymore. Fine with me.
It still doesn't lessen the gap between wage earners in America (Union or non-Union) with those in Mexico, India, China, and other spots in Latin America. In my book a competion has always been a fair fight. Even at Federal Min. wage standards that 2-10 times the amount of money those workers make per hour over seas.
So I ask you....how do we compete with that?

By coming up with new ideas that require skills and knowledge that are hard to out-source. To out-source low paying jobs will not take away from the jobs that require skills and knowledge difficult to out-source. Also jobs will be created in areas that must be sourced here for the purpose of time and convenience. Much out-sourcing will be done here with companies using their value to help other companies in return for their strenghts. This is called connecting. It lowers cost ,but keeps the jobs local. Fred I don't think you have ever owned your own company, because you seem to have a negative view on problem solving.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>Now we are starting to get some where. You are correct, the UAW members have nothing to do with the design unless you understand the cost of the UAW support package is billed into the car.Let's see here hum, insurance for life, pensions for life, pay without work, big dollars per hour, and demands every time your contract comes due,not to mention the cost of strikes. That doesn't have anything to do with design only everything to do with cost

Ok, lets go over this line-by-line.
-Insurance/pension: Your right about this one. The Big-3 has actually done the responsible thing by privately funding these two large ticket expenses. However, its placed them at a disadvantage to the tune of billions of dollars per year. With the coming of nationalized H/C that will save the Big-3 tens of Billions of dollars every year. Following the Japanese auto maker business model as well as the wal-mart business model. Those costs will now be shifted onto tax payers. You wanted it, soon you'll have it.

-(pay without work) or whats been called "Job banks": Those are a mute point. The Big-3 no longer has them. Southern transplants, European, and Japanese auto makers however still do have them. Big-3 workers who have been laid off are no longer paid by the company. They are now collecting unemployment benefits. So you and I are paying them. So if your angry about job banks your anger is misdirected at the UAW and/or the Big-3. Its the foreign auto makers that pay workers not to work.

-big dollars per hour: True enough $28 per hour is a lot more than $15.However, Labor costs account for under 10 percent of the cost of a car. The real cost came from health acre and legacy costs. But as I postes above, nationalized H/C will be the cure for that ill. So no worries.

-and demands every time your contract comes due: Information regarding Big-3 contracts is a matter of public record. Do a few left clicks and read for yourself the amounts of concessions that have been made over the last 30yrs.

-not to mention the cost of strikes: Well, what is the cost? How many strikes have the Big-3/UAW gone through during the last 25-30yrs? Once again, look it up. You'll be very suprised to find how much of your anti-Union sediment is more hype then reality.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>Ok, lets go over this line-by-line.
-Insurance/pension: Your right about this one. The Big-3 has actually done the responsible thing by privately funding these two large ticket expenses. However, its placed them at a disadvantage to the tune of billions of dollars per year. With the coming of nationalized H/C that will save the Big-3 tens of Billions of dollars every year. Following the Japanese auto maker business model as well as the wal-mart business model. Those costs will now be shifted onto tax payers. You wanted it, soon you'll have it.
-(pay without work) or whats been called "Job banks": Those are a mute point. The Big-3 no longer has them. Southern transplants, European, and Japanese auto makers however still do have them. Big-3 workers who have been laid off are no longer paid by the company. They are now collecting unemployment benefits. So you and I are paying them. So if your angry about job banks your anger is misdirected at the UAW and/or the Big-3. Its the foreign auto makers that pay workers not to work.
-big dollars per hour: True enough $28 per hour is a lot more than $15.However, Labor costs account for under 10 percent of the cost of a car. The real cost came from health acre and legacy costs. But as I postes above, nationalized H/C will be the cure for that ill. So no worries.
-and demands every time your contract comes due: Information regarding Big-3 contracts is a matter of public record. Do a few left clicks and read for yourself the amounts of concessions that have been made over the last 30yrs.
-not to mention the cost of strikes: Well, what is the cost? How many strikes have the Big-3/UAW gone through during the last 25-30yrs? Once again, look it up. You'll be very suprised to find how much of your anti-Union sediment is more hype then reality.

Good it's about time all these perks are gone , we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future, but you didn't care at the time you accepted such stupid promises. Your still on the hook because you never said no when you new you could not compete.All these changes were forced on you guys, never did anyone stand up to the UAW leaders and say enough is enough your going to cost me and my family a right to work. You asked for it, you bought it, now it's yours (good luck).

tom wrote:

<quoted text>Good it's about time all these perks are gone , we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future, but you didn't care at the time you accepted such stupid promises. Your still on the hook because you never said no when you new you could not compete.All these changes were forced on you guys, never did anyone stand up to the UAW leaders and say enough is enough your going to cost me and my family a right to work. You asked for it, you bought it, now it's yours (good luck).

"we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future" Oh well, you all of the far right wanted this and now you have it. Job banks are gone for the Big-3, and now those costs have been shifted to the tax payers. Deal with it!! Maybe in the future you'll take the time to figure out things for yourself rather than blindly follow conservative talking pts.

So no comment on your foreign transplants and their jobs bank? Thats cool. But what about all of those tax dollars that they've used up? No biggie right. So its really not about tax dollars or business models at all. Its just that you hate Unions.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>"we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future" Oh well, you all of the far right wanted this and now you have it. Job banks are gone for the Big-3, and now those costs have been shifted to the tax payers. Deal with it!! Maybe in the future you'll take the time to figure out things for yourself rather than blindly follow conservative talking pts.
So no comment on your foreign transplants and their jobs bank? Thats cool. But what about all of those tax dollars that they've used up? No biggie right. So its really not about tax dollars or business models at all. Its just that you hate Unions.

First of all I need to tell you I don't consider myself conservative. I only understand nothing works unless you produce more then you take. When you produce less then you take your in trouble. If you noticed I never called you a liberal, because I don't give a rats ass what any of us are, only that results is what works. You can't take more then you produce period. Now are you going to tell me that's another non-orginal old idea.

tom wrote:

<quoted text>First of all I need to tell you I don't consider myself conservative. I only understand nothing works unless you produce more then you take. When you produce less then you take your in trouble. If you noticed I never called you a liberal, because I don't give a rats ass what any of us are, only that results is what works. You can't take more then you produce period. Now are you going to tell me that's another non-orginal old idea.

Fair enough. I'll restate my point minus the conservative label just to see if you'll even attempt to acknowledge it this time around.

"we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future" Oh well, the far right as well as the vocal opponents of the Big-3 wanted this and now you have it. Job banks are gone for the Big-3, and now those costs have been shifted to the tax payers. Deal with it!! Maybe in the future you'll take the time to figure out things for yourself rather than blindly follow inaccurate talking pts.

So no comment on your foreign transplants and their jobs bank? Thats cool. But what about all of those tax dollars that they've used up? No biggie right. So its really not about tax dollars or business models at all. Its just that you hate Unions.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>Fair enough. I'll restate my point minus the conservative label just to see if you'll even attempt to acknowledge it this time around.
"we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future" Oh well, the far right as well as the vocal opponents of the Big-3 wanted this and now you have it. Job banks are gone for the Big-3, and now those costs have been shifted to the tax payers. Deal with it!! Maybe in the future you'll take the time to figure out things for yourself rather than blindly follow inaccurate talking pts.
So no comment on your foreign transplants and their jobs bank? Thats cool. But what about all of those tax dollars that they've used up? No biggie right. So its really not about tax dollars or business models at all. Its just that you hate Unions.

No I don't hate unions, I just think they took advantage of their power in way that took them down. I feel unions for the right reason's are needed, but as everyone I don't trust their human nature. Of course that goes for any operation. Look the union needs to clean their act up and confess some of their mistakes and evrything would start to fix itself. As far as the right, I think these people need to stop bitching and come up with better solutions. One thing is for sure, the right keep singing the same bulls--t, but have zero answers. At least Obama for good or for bad is trying new and maybe risky moves, but I'll take that over doing nothing. As far as the foreign job banks I confess, I don't know sh--t.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>Fair enough. I'll restate my point minus the conservative label just to see if you'll even attempt to acknowledge it this time around.
"we don't need to add more cost to the tax payer in the future" Oh well, the far right as well as the vocal opponents of the Big-3 wanted this and now you have it. Job banks are gone for the Big-3, and now those costs have been shifted to the tax payers. Deal with it!! Maybe in the future you'll take the time to figure out things for yourself rather than blindly follow inaccurate talking pts.
So no comment on your foreign transplants and their jobs bank? Thats cool. But what about all of those tax dollars that they've used up? No biggie right. So its really not about tax dollars or business models at all. Its just that you hate Unions.

I would be interested in how the jobs bank costs got transferred to taxpayers. Do you mean unemployment pay? If so, aren't you being a little misleading? Unemployment pay is far, far less than jobs bank. Also, unemployment pay comes from money paid into a fund by employers, not paid by taxpayers. I know, because I have had my own business for 24 years and pay into it bi annually. Last question. I would be interested in what you are talking about for jobs banks for foreign car companies. Is this something new, or is it something that I have never heard about? Or do you mean that Toyota keeps people working, in many cases, at full pay, when assembly lines are shut down? When this happens the people are productively employed painting, cleaning, maintaining equipment, cross training, etc. Not sitting in a big room playing checkers as in the Jobs Bank from the Big 3.

tom wrote:

<quoted text>No I don't hate unions, I just think they took advantage of their power in way that took them down. I feel unions for the right reason's are needed, but as everyone I don't trust their human nature. Of course that goes for any operation. Look the union needs to clean their act up and confess some of their mistakes and evrything would start to fix itself. As far as the right, I think these people need to stop bitching and come up with better solutions. One thing is for sure, the right keep singing the same bulls--t, but have zero answers. At least Obama for good or for bad is trying new and maybe risky moves, but I'll take that over doing nothing. As far as the foreign job banks I confess, I don't know sh--t.

This is a confession that I wish UAW leadership would have made long ago. Unions never plan for the bad times. They never look around and see whom could be a valuable alli somewhere down the line. Northern Unions need to make good with Southerners.

This will prove to be very difficult taking into consideration how almost all Unions turned their backs on southern textile workers during the 50's. Organized labor messed up bad on that one. I wouldn't go as far as to say Unions took advantage of their power, and that's whats taking them down. I'd say they misjudged their power back then, and that planted the seeds to whats killing us right now.

The biggest thorn in our side however is misinformation. Organized labor is doing a shit job of speaking up for its self on the national stage. The far right has an agenda aginst the Unions. As would I if I were them. Unions were the top 20 contributors to the Dem's of the last ten yrs or so.

That said, its the Unions job to promote its self, not the far right's. Union leadership needs to get on top of that yesterday!!

Jobs bank costs got transferred to taxpayers in a number of ways. Take the Big-3 for example here in Michigan. In Michigan, employers pay a tax on the first $9,000 each employee makes. The amount of tax they pay is an "experience rate" which is set each year based on claims for unemployment the employer has had against it. And positive balance employer is an employer who has paid more into the system than they has been paid out in claims to former employees. A negative balance employer is one for whom more has been paid in claims than the employer paid into the system. An employer with a good experience rate probably is paying only around .06% tax on the first $9,000 an employee makes. A negative balance employer could be paying 3% or more.

In the past the Big-3 was paying into the system (which was a great benefit to the state) yet hardly ever using that benefit due to having a jobs bank. Like any other insurance when a claim is made the rates go up. So now we have more individuals filing claims, at a time of record unemployment. Also at a time where state and federal bugets are underfunded.

About 40,000 Michigan employers will pay an extra $67.50 per employee in 2009 to help pay off a $472.8-million shortfall in the unemployment benefits trust fund.

That's money the state had to borrow from the federal government in order to pay benefits to an estimated 650,000 people this year.(Tax payer dollars)

The added solvency tax will affect businesses whose laid-off employees have collected more in benefits than the employers paid into the state unemployment fund.

It's the first time the surcharge has been imposed since the recession of the early 1980s, said Norm Isotalo, spokesman for the state unemployment insurance agency.

In addition, in 2010, most state employers will pay $21 more per employee to pay off the state's debt to the federal unemployment system.

http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/2008/...

So when the unemployment benefits run out whats next? Medicare, food stamps, wic ect ect. All tax dollar drains.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>This is a confession that I wish UAW leadership would have made long ago. Unions never plan for the bad times. They never look around and see whom could be a valuable alli somewhere down the line. Northern Unions need to make good with Southerners.
This will prove to be very difficult taking into consideration how almost all Unions turned their backs on southern textile workers during the 50's. Organized labor messed up bad on that one. I wouldn't go as far as to say Unions took advantage of their power, and that's whats taking them down. I'd say they misjudged their power back then, and that planted the seeds to whats killing us right now.
The biggest thorn in our side however is misinformation. Organized labor is doing a shit job of speaking up for its self on the national stage. The far right has an agenda aginst the Unions. As would I if I were them. Unions were the top 20 contributors to the Dem's of the last ten yrs or so.
That said, its the Unions job to promote its self, not the far right's. Union leadership needs to get on top of that yesterday!!

This is why the UAW needs to understand it can't take more then it produces. Why haven't you answered me on that issue? It's not about fairness it's about producing. All the contracts and needs in the world mean nothing if you don't produce. Where have you been the last ten years living under a rock. I could care less about UAW needs if they don't want to understand money does not grow on trees. Who cares whose fault it is, the fact is the UAW wants to make us all think it's the big bad company and it's the stupid public's fault for supporting foreign companies.Get off your high horse and admit the UAW is in trouble, and as soon as they shrink to a non-effective vote the American people will rip off their shorts. Once they lose their power and that day is coming, maybe the lenders and the tax holders will get their money back by passing a luxury tax on your health care and your pension. Wow that would make you stand up and listen

FredUAW wrote:

Jobs bank costs got transferred to taxpayers in a number of ways. Take the Big-3 for example here in Michigan. In Michigan, employers pay a tax on the first $9,000 each employee makes. The amount of tax they pay is an "experience rate" which is set each year based on claims for unemployment the employer has had against it. And positive balance employer is an employer who has paid more into the system than they has been paid out in claims to former employees. A negative balance employer is one for whom more has been paid in claims than the employer paid into the system. An employer with a good experience rate probably is paying only around .06% tax on the first $9,000 an employee makes. A negative balance employer could be paying 3% or more.
In the past the Big-3 was paying into the system (which was a great benefit to the state) yet hardly ever using that benefit due to having a jobs bank. Like any other insurance when a claim is made the rates go up. So now we have more individuals filing claims, at a time of record unemployment. Also at a time where state and federal bugets are underfunded.
About 40,000 Michigan employers will pay an extra $67.50 per employee in 2009 to help pay off a $472.8-million shortfall in the unemployment benefits trust fund.
That's money the state had to borrow from the federal government in order to pay benefits to an estimated 650,000 people this year.(Tax payer dollars)
The added solvency tax will affect businesses whose laid-off employees have collected more in benefits than the employers paid into the state unemployment fund.
It's the first time the surcharge has been imposed since the recession of the early 1980s, said Norm Isotalo, spokesman for the state unemployment insurance agency.
In addition, in 2010, most state employers will pay $21 more per employee to pay off the state's debt to the federal unemployment system.
http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/2008/...
So when the unemployment benefits run out whats next? Medicare, food stamps, wic ect ect. All tax dollar drains.

I see your point, Fred, and it is well taken. You are obviously very well versed on how all this works, and I stand corrected. May I suggest that the present anti union movement was started with Reagan when he gave the green light for union bashing on the Traffic Controllers. Today unions are being assaulted from all sides and sliding into insignificance. I think this is a great long term tradgety for the American people. Don't get me wrong. From former posts you are well aware that I have talked about union abuses of the power it has achieved, and I stand by that. What frightens me is that if present trends continue we will get back to the 1910 era, when a handfull of super rich controlled this country and everyone else was basically a slave. My father and grandfather, if they were still alive, could speak of the days in the coal fields when armed company police patrolled like in the Soviet Union. I think we will all pay a price if unions disappear. The best bet, in my opinion, is for unions to pruge themselves of deadbeats, stop protecting the drunks, lazy sobs, etc, and become like a professional organization. If unions represented only the best, hardest working, and most reasonable to deal with, companies would seek out union workers rather than untested non union workers. It is a competitive world out there, and to survive unions have to offer the best that there is. Unions built the middle class in this country. If you read my book you will quickly conclude that it is not anti union. It is anti incompetent management.

i wish someone would loan me some

Savage Factory wrote:

<quoted text>
I see your point, Fred, and it is well taken. You are obviously very well versed on how all this works, and I stand corrected. May I suggest that the present anti union movement was started with Reagan when he gave the green light for union bashing on the Traffic Controllers. Today unions are being assaulted from all sides and sliding into insignificance. I think this is a great long term tradgety for the American people. Don't get me wrong. From former posts you are well aware that I have talked about union abuses of the power it has achieved, and I stand by that. What frightens me is that if present trends continue we will get back to the 1910 era, when a handfull of super rich controlled this country and everyone else was basically a slave. My father and grandfather, if they were still alive, could speak of the days in the coal fields when armed company police patrolled like in the Soviet Union. I think we will all pay a price if unions disappear. The best bet, in my opinion, is for unions to pruge themselves of deadbeats, stop protecting the drunks, lazy sobs, etc, and become like a professional organization. If unions represented only the best, hardest working, and most reasonable to deal with, companies would seek out union workers rather than untested non union workers. It is a competitive world out there, and to survive unions have to offer the best that there is. Unions built the middle class in this country. If you read my book you will quickly conclude that it is not anti union. It is anti incompetent management.

Also I wish that we'd pull out of the Democratic party and become Independents. That way the (D)'s would stop taking us for granted, and the (R)'s would stop attacking us in hopes of courting us. But you are correct, the Union has plenty of house work to do its self.

Well, I really don't agree that the unions are the only thing keeping companies from sliding back to a 1910 mentality, but it is refreshing to read everything else you wrote. I have long felt unions largely created their own problems by stubbornly sticking with outdated attitudes and practices while companies were facing entirely new competitive realities. I can't tell you how sick I am of reading posts from union supporters about everything unions have done for workers. OK, I agree, but that was 50 years ago and you REALLY need to get out of the past. Of course management is to blame as well, but this is tough because the whole collective bargaining structure sets the two sides up in an adversarial relationship.

I don't pretend to know the answers but I do know that historical union approach will result in continued loss of private sector jobs. Completely fresh ideas about how union and management can work together, rather than pit their members against one another, are really needed. The adversarial relationship will doom both company and union member everywhere except maybe government workers. You sound like you are on the right track...

Savage Factory wrote:

<quoted text>
I see your point, Fred, and it is well taken. You are obviously very well versed on how all this works, and I stand corrected. May I suggest that the present anti union movement was started with Reagan when he gave the green light for union bashing on the Traffic Controllers. Today unions are being assaulted from all sides and sliding into insignificance. I think this is a great long term tradgety for the American people. Don't get me wrong. From former posts you are well aware that I have talked about union abuses of the power it has achieved, and I stand by that. What frightens me is that if present trends continue we will get back to the 1910 era, when a handfull of super rich controlled this country and everyone else was basically a slave. My father and grandfather, if they were still alive, could speak of the days in the coal fields when armed company police patrolled like in the Soviet Union. I think we will all pay a price if unions disappear. The best bet, in my opinion, is for unions to pruge themselves of deadbeats, stop protecting the drunks, lazy sobs, etc, and become like a professional organization. If unions represented only the best, hardest working, and most reasonable to deal with, companies would seek out union workers rather than untested non union workers. It is a competitive world out there, and to survive unions have to offer the best that there is. Unions built the middle class in this country. If you read my book you will quickly conclude that it is not anti union. It is anti incompetent management.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>This is why the UAW needs to understand it can't take more then it produces. Why haven't you answered me on that issue? It's not about fairness it's about producing. All the contracts and needs in the world mean nothing if you don't produce. Where have you been the last ten years living under a rock. I could care less about UAW needs if they don't want to understand money does not grow on trees. Who cares whose fault it is, the fact is the UAW wants to make us all think it's the big bad company and it's the stupid public's fault for supporting foreign companies.Get off your high horse and admit the UAW is in trouble, and as soon as they shrink to a non-effective vote the American people will rip off their shorts. Once they lose their power and that day is coming, maybe the lenders and the tax holders will get their money back by passing a luxury tax on your health care and your pension. Wow that would make you stand up and listen

This lack of understanding and high horse that you speak of are all in your imagination, and I'm sorry that you feel this way.

Something that puzzles me is how well you understand the concept of not taking more then one produces. "It's not about fairness it's about producing. All the contracts and needs in the world mean nothing if you don't produce."

Yet you just got done arguing tooth and nail over the validity of bondholder contracts post bankruptcy. If I remember correctly you even went as far as to say what happened to them wasn't "fair". But when you speak of the UAW; "It's not about fairness it's about producing."

How does this work? Explain the rules of the double standard so that I'll know in future posts.

FredUAW wrote:

<quoted text>This lack of understanding and high horse that you speak of are all in your imagination, and I'm sorry that you feel this way.
Something that puzzles me is how well you understand the concept of not taking more then one produces. "It's not about fairness it's about producing. All the contracts and needs in the world mean nothing if you don't produce."
Yet you just got done arguing tooth and nail over the validity of bondholder contracts post bankruptcy. If I remember correctly you even went as far as to say what happened to them wasn't "fair". But when you speak of the UAW; "It's not about fairness it's about producing."
How does this work? Explain the rules of the double standard so that I'll know in future posts.

No double standard, contracts or not always fair , You can't compare the UAW to a contract. All judges have always ruled based on contract law even if you sighed something stupid, because to reverse a contract is to say a deal is not a deal. When you can't depend on a contract in American to be the law then lending becomes nothing more then a shot in the dark.That changes the risk and changes the rules. You are already experencing what America is like without credit. No credit the economy stops and all your jobs go with it. So the UAW as I said have made a big mistake and a big backwords step toward their future.Contracts are not about fair there about agreements. If you agree to something and it's thought to not be fair the law is not going to change that agreement unless it was created under duress or it was illegal. This was not the sitution with the UAW.No double standard occured.

Max wrote:

Well, I really don't agree that the unions are the only thing keeping companies from sliding back to a 1910 mentality, but it is refreshing to read everything else you wrote. I have long felt unions largely created their own problems by stubbornly sticking with outdated attitudes and practices while companies were facing entirely new competitive realities. I can't tell you how sick I am of reading posts from union supporters about everything unions have done for workers. OK, I agree, but that was 50 years ago and you REALLY need to get out of the past. Of course management is to blame as well, but this is tough because the whole collective bargaining structure sets the two sides up in an adversarial relationship.
I don't pretend to know the answers but I do know that historical union approach will result in continued loss of private sector jobs. Completely fresh ideas about how union and management can work together, rather than pit their members against one another, are really needed. The adversarial relationship will doom both company and union member everywhere except maybe government workers. You sound like you are on the right track...
<quoted text>

I think unions would have a bright future if they policed their own ranks. By that I mean being a union member should involve professional qualifications. If you are a, say, union pipefitter or a union assember, or even a union floor sweeper it should tell employers that here are men and women who have met certain qualifications and the self policing mechanism of the union structure guarantees that this person will work 8 hours for 8 hours of pay, perform in a professional manner, and do an exceptional job. If he or she does not, then the union will expel that person from their ranks. There would be no need for an authoritarian or advesersial management stance. Then unions would have a future. As opposed to labor unions up to this point, which had no real qualifying requirements other than they got through their 30 day probationary period, got into the union, and now the union will protect them even if they are drunks, dope addicks, won't work, etc. This is what I experienced at Ford. Some of the very worst members of society were UAW members. I am talking a man who murdered his wife, a man who raped a teenage girl, men who repeatedly showed up too drunk to clock in.This forced an adverserial stance onto management in order to meet production requirements. In every case the UAW fully backed and defended these kinds of people. Would you want your accountant and your dentist and your plumber to have verifiable credentials? Of course you would. Yet the people who build your cars have no qualifying requirements other than they got their 30 day probationary period in and were accepted into the union. If unions became professional organizations, i.e., a union welder or union whatever was guaranteed to be top of the line, companies would seek out union members rather than avoid them like lepers. Then unions would have a future. In "A Savage Factory" I have tried to put the reader in the shoes of a foreman to show them what they were up against. More than anything, I had hoped that my book would educate and open peoples eyes to how we got in the mess that we are in.