Perhaps the Unions are not “bullying” (although I’d argue that point), but I bet you dollars to donuts that executive discussion of any decision involving significant change had a big roadblock right at the start: can we sell this to the Union. Stop making Pontiacs and shut those plants down- will the Union fight us on this one? Switch from metal bodies to plastic panels created offsite- can the Union metal workers be mollified first? Have “truck wheel attachment laborer Class 3” perform some new task that doesn’t involve traditional wheels, trucks, or “class 3” labor? That could be a job action waiting to happen… and so on.

In any moderately large company, the path of least resistance is the one most commonly taken, and I am certain that the Unions and their structure are a big impediment to change. Sure, the Executives with a bright idea to significantly change something *could* make it happen, but instead of making the change they’d be spending weeks and months negotiating to mollify the unions- committees, reviews, compromises. It is hard enough to imagine bright ideas in big U.S. automakers, but the rare ones that came along had this big uphill battle to fight with people who see their main job as “sticking it to the man”.

You are right, though- I get more angry than the situation deserves, and I’m not telling a fully-rounded story here. But I direct your attention to the fact that this is in the “Rants” category (rant: to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way). Some things bug me, and if, within my own limited vision, I repeatedly see something I disagree with (E.G.: all the problems with the U.S. auto industry are caused by the executives, the unions are run by a bunch of poor, downtrodden, hardworking guys and gals), I use this category to say something. And I say it knowing full well that it might be unbalanced in exactly the opposite (and equally wrong) way: despite that, it satisfies some deep need I have to get the frustration publicly off my chest.