As someone in one, I can tell you that the the average worker has no more say about his union that he has bout his management. And if you are critical of the union you can be sure you won’t be the ones seen on TV at union sponsored news events.

I don’t like the CAW / UAW. But I have nothing against the average autoworker. He may have a cushy deal, I can’t say for sure as I have never done his job, but even if he does … well good for him. I’m pretty sure most people would like a cushy deal of they could get it.

About 1/3 of them working for the big 3 in Canada have already been laid off. And having been laid off for cost cutting reasons even though my performance was exemplary, with little prospect of other good employment, I sympathize. I sympathize for their families, and the businesses in their communities that depend on them.

Not enough to bankrupt myself on their behalf, but I do sympathize.

As to their union, I have long said that organized labour is like organized religion, government, corporations or any other big organisation; they soon enough evolve to serve the organization itself, not the members.

I think the UAW / CAW is bad, ultimately, because of the disservice it has done it’s members, not what it has done to me:

It could have invested in the auto makers and taken a seat at the management table, but has repeatedly refused to do so.

It could have taken control of the workers pension plan, or at least partial control, but refused to do so.

It has repeatedly engaged in mainstream politics only remotely connected if at all to teh working conditions of it’s members.

And in doing all of the above, it has harmed the image off all unions and union members, and particularly in the case of its own membership, given the autoworkers the image of lazy spoiled brats unwilling to put in an honest days work. I don’t believe that stereotype is any more accurate than that of the “drunken indian”, but it is just as harmful, and the union itself created it.

As a final aside: Any claim that the contracts with the unions are bad deals and ruinous to the companies is simply an admission that the companies management is incompetent. After all, they are paid a considerable amount for their skill and education in business matters and their ability to see to the future consequences of business decisions. They were not deceived by fraud. They signed these agreements willingly knowing full well what was in them.

Yes, the worker has the “renegotiate or loose your job” option, but management has always had the “if you can’t get a decent contract, change your business” option.

They have even been able to get concessions from the UAW, as was the case when Saturn was originally formed. They had a much more flexible and some might say favourable, labour agreement, one that was terminated at the instigation of GM, not the union

Your primary source of labour has a near monopoly on the market and is correspondingly difficult to bargain with. But that is the nature of business and is what those MBA’a are for. Dealing with problems like that is your job as management, and if you don’t like that, well you should take up a different line of work.

No … the UAW is a pain in the ass full of parasitic blowhards, and they have done much to harm north American industry and even more to damage its own membership. But one can hardly paint it as a bully that forced management to do anything it didn’t want to.