What doi you think the coalition was about. Layton was supposed to be Industry Minister, in this environment that means Minister of Bailouts. You think the unions didnt want a fanboi there?

And we're supposed to be surprised? This A******S will keep on doing what they're doing until they don't have a job. And, even then the American taxpayer will get stuck for their pension benefits.

What a joke!

Well I guess they don't care too badly about saving their jobs. Why then, should we??

Get ready for the contract ON America. And Canada, for that matter.

I can only do what an individual can do in this case: If the Unions do not accept that they have to take pay cuts I will not ever again buy a Big 3 product. I drive a 2005 GMC half-ton, fourth in a row since 1994, but it will be the last.

The Toyota Tundra looks pretty good to me.

North americans can vote with their vehicles when it is time to trade in. Drive into the lots of the Toyota's and Honda's of the world. Seems that the auto workers unions just don't want to wait for the asteroid.

In that case:

You get NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!

I cannot picture anyone, who has a distrust for unions, ever buying car again from one of the U-S auto companies.
The union bosses attitude seems to be "We will concede nothing except our own jobs," and the next contract will weigh 44 pounds instead of 22.

TOB, Americans already are unfortunately, which is one of the reasons the auto manufacturers find themselves in their current unenviable situation. The media has done everything possible to undermine American manufacturing. I, on the other hand, will buy GM products until there are none left to buy. At that point, hopefully there are still Ford products. Otherwise, I'll be the 80-year old woman peering over the hood of her 20-year old Deville Touring Sedan.

This is about claiming the spoils after they (one or all of big 3)go belly up. Fairness and doing what is morally right has nothing to do with this gang(Ron Pullmyginger and the UAW)

I have spoken with my local MP and was quite clear on the matter. Any Federal bailout for the car companies must contain concessions on the part of unions. Otherwise my days as a political activist for the CPC are ended.
Why support any part that has little or no fortitude? One can only sit in the middle of the road for so long.

Two brand new North American Auto Plants,(Toyota in Woodstock Ontario, and Honda in Indiana) are ramping up with flex lines capable of building what the market wants. I have no doubt that that modern companies such as these are poised to take over the market share if, and more likely when, one, two, or even three of the Detroit three fall.

These large multinational(affiliates) unions will not give an inch. Reason they are terrified of the certainty of there demise. The dollars per hour to be cut,and there will be cuts, is the dollars that are going directly to the unions to run their "programs" such as community-worker-feel-good group-hug isn't socialism wonderful(for us)spiritual sessions, as well as the gold plated pensions for union hierarchy( please note here Buzz Hargrove). Does it not seem odd that Buzz retired from his union chief job when this crap started coming down, instead of staying to fight the GOOD fight for the union membership, for the first time his membership needed him and Buzz went for retirement. With these unions gone the worker costs would be more comparible to the "transplant" workers costs.

I don't blame the unions for this. It's exactly what I would have expected. The fool's are the CPC (spelled NDP) government we elected and Canadian taxpayers.

"An undue tax on the workers" is how union boss Ron Gettelfinger described it as the UAW reneged on the deal almost before the ink was dry."

It's hard to believe the arrogance of this executive! "An undue tax on the workers"! What in hell does he think the whole bailout is!

It's an undue tax on all the rest of us, to keep him and his cronies fat and sassy.

Cut off the bailout, let'em go down the drain.

It's time to rethink the whole bloody system. Welcome to the Great Depression, part 2.

The whole thing is just a bizarre crooked poker game with the taxpayer tied in one chair and with everyone else bluffing and BS-ing while stealing from his stack.

The union establishment isn't fighting to build cars, they want early retirement and medical plans on the taxpayer's dime. What they really don't want is bankruptcy, new management, new young workers, and a fresh start with them and their old management buddies out on their asses.

The problem here in Alberta is, we need trucks to do business. Only the big 3 can provide suitable trucks. Nissan and Toyota have both flopped on their first attempt. Maybe they'll build some better stuff in the future, but for a couple of years, we need to keep those big 3 plants working.

You office zombies can fart along in your little hondas, but the people doing the actual work out there need real work vehicles.

Most of the people in my social strata will never buy anything but Detroit iron. I'll probably only buy a few more vehicles, and I doubt they'll be "foreign", but you never know. Any trucks certainly won't come from across the pond(s).

So, who are "we" angry at? Well, it's a long list. We're angry at Detroit management for taking so long to respond to market situations. We're angry at greedy union bosses for not having the foresight to realize they were destroying their members future. We're angry at government for allowing foreign companies to "dump" products into our economy. And most of all, we're angry at all you zombies who blindly believe that foreign is better. You remind me of those aging tarts that hook up with some guy with an accent. You don't catch on that he's just looking for a free pass into the country.

Ford will survive a bit longer, but Chrysler is gone. GM will have to be restructured because they are no longer a "car" company ... more like a retirement haven for fatcats.

We will see only two US-based car companies soon ... and their product lines will be heavily rationalized to get rid of the excess and losers.

Factories will be closed because there is large over-production capabilities. Canada will lose more car factories and we will represent much less than 20% of the production.

By 2010 we will have a new and smaller US car industry ... and Ontario is gonna hit the skids big time. Forget about equalization payments for the Maritimes, socialist Manitoba and bloated Quebec now ... it's gonna be "throw them off the boat and let them swim on their own" time ....!!!!

Picture this circle of cash:

North American taxpayer buys GM/Ford/Chrysler/ Vehicle.
A percentage of that purchase goes to the employees who built the vehicle.
The employees then pay a percentage to the UAW.
The UAW sends some of that money to lobbyists in DC as well as campaign contributions to key Democrats.
Campaign contributions help elect Obama and other democrats.
Elected officials then dig back into north american taxpayers' pockets - even those who have never purchased a vehicle from Ford/GM/Chrysler - to help keep them alive.
A portion of this is then given to the workers, who give to the unions, who give to the lobbyists and elected officials, and so on.

How can one NOT envy the UAW?? This is a completely brilliant (and apparently legal) scam. All we need now is Madoff to manage their money.

Odd that no one says much about the 570,000 members of CUPE .

I can't speak for what Obama will do but I think that Bush made it pretty clear that the Big 3 and all stake holders have until March/09 to get their stuff together - or the loans get called. I think he is serious (and I think that Obama will be just as tough). I think that all stake holders are trying to draw up initial battle lines.

It is my understanding that the average total compensation for Big 3 workers is about $71/hr. This includes legacy costs of about $16/hr (which - maybe for tax purposes - is divided among the active workers - these are pension costs). The Big 3 also have more generous health plans.

The total average compensation for the Japanese is about $49/hr. The legacy costs are about $3/hr (and I am not sure if it is included as part of a workers compensation). Note that the first Japanese plants arrived in the late '80's and so they do not have a lot of pensioners. However, their pension plans are supposed to be skimpier and their health plans are skimpier.

In terms of actual wages for example, Toyota actually has an average wage of $31/hr, followed by GM at $29/hr (which I think is representative of the Big 3), followed by Honda at about $27/hr. The base wages for a new worker at Toyota is slightly higher than the Big 3 or Honda at about $16/hr - because they are trying to attract better workers.

Mike in White Rock, This is a while ago but I read that the Ontario Government is on the hook for Big 3 pensions (this needs to be checked out - but some sort of pension guarantee agreement was worked out when the Big 3 got into trouble a long time ago - and this is probably similar in some US states). This means that the Ontario taxpayer could be paying up to $2.2B a year until these pensioners die off. Also, Ontario collects over $600M a year in taxes from these pensioners (and I think that Ottawa gets almost as much). So I think I understand why places like Ontario and some US states are so big on some sort of bailout/loan thing.

I only drive fords, btw.

Stop payments to the corporate welfare bums. Let them sink!

Those assholes of the political and union class always seem to forget one thing, it's my god damn money they are spending. In my latest 2 ½ year venture at 65 years of age and using my retirement money, nearly 350k to date, are they going to bail me out if things don't work out as expected? We all know that answer to that, not in a frosty Friday in hell.

One thing I know for sure, unless there is one big attitude adjustment in this Country, Harper included, I will as I did during the cretien years, pack up and head the hell out, again. Both classes seem to forget, money does talk, with it’s feet, and my tolerance of both is very short fused at this point.

Western Canadian- Where ya gonna run to this time? I've been thinking about leaving too, but can't think of a single English speaking country that's any better off. Personally, I think Switzerland is the best bet, but they're a little strict on immigration. What do you know?, maybe that's why they're so desirable?

The CA was beginning to change its tune, based on the idea that the UAW was going to collapse and offer concessions.

This is somewhat about tactics. The public will be quite angry if any of the three, possibly 4 stakeholders dont cooperate...those are

1) Bondholders, need to turn into equity to relieve the cash drain and improve th ebakance sheet (ultimately to allow more borrowing)

2) Unions, workers need to take an hourly paycut and/or reduce the workrule restrictions to decrease the effective wage. Also cut in bennies. Point is ot make a car that is less expensive to produce. Decreased workrule restrictions would help the car companies without reduing actual per hour wages, but that only goes so far

3) Management - foregoing of bonuses, decreased bennies and defintiely decreased numbers. Probably freezes on salaries if not reductions in salary.

4) Pensioners, have to take cuts in benefits...in the US thi smeans that the payments into VEBA will be reduced significantly....there is a theoretical point that if VEBA was cut lose today that would generate "x" reduction in benefits. There are 10's of billions in payments due to VEBA over the next 2 years from GM alone.

Public sympathy probably is highest with retirees and lowest with bondhodlers...although none of the players is held up as a paragon of virtue.

I m not sure how this plays out...other than if the union dosnt concede anything they really are done for as a force with any public support. This means they are on their own completely for the future...whcih could be only 6 mnths from now.

Small tidbit. The car lots are completely full, no more can b shipped here and the domestic production cant sell what they make. Here, and in europe. Expect major major sales on cars in the next 6 months, I am talking 50% off new vehicles, and until that inventory starts to move, those car plants arent being called back into production.

Once people get used to a lower price they arent buying again at a higher one. UAW would be better placed to cut a deal now because without it it is only going to get worse. The Auto companies would love a strike, because they dont need to produce and they pay nothing to idled workers.

The bill to the taxpayers is only going to go up. Bush and Harper were trying to provide bankruptcy financing wihout the judges gavel. First sign of instransigence the government should eithe rwihdraw the financing, which leads to insolvency or look at a more radical solution

The radical solution is

Take complete owenership into a new company. Hold it there for a day. Spin out the assets into a newco, make an offer to the old worlers at a wage and contract without a union, keep all liabilities in the government entity.

Once assets are spun out, shouldnt take lone, declare new entity insolvent. 9.9% government ownership in newco funds whatever to pay liability holders.

1) Forces liability holders to deal
2) Breaks the union
3) Preserves the assets
4) Does it quickly (which is key)

This is the only solution if the industry is as important as everyone is saying, including the union. If it isnt then this solution snt required, but then no other solution is required either.

All stakeholders compromise or the very brutish and ham handed fist of government will impose a solution. This threat must be real and credible, and must be swift if done.

My bet, labour, like other constituencies that backed Obama, are in for a bit of a surprise. This guy is a politician and if there are more votes staring down the union, he'll do it. Unlike some I dont think he is in anyones pocket other than his own self interest. There was no agenda there as far as I could tell.

Who cares what brand a car is if it is the best value? If you toss money at a company that is grossly over-charging for it's products because they need to pay for the zillions of retired union workers ... well that's up to you. There is little value in that ... I called that being a sucker.

I quit buying Detroit 'junk' about twenty years ago when I realized that Japanese cars were a far better value.

I hate that we are tossing tons of tax-payer money at this quagmire of greedy unionism and corporate stupidity.

dp it isn't English speaking and isn't particularly a pleasant place to live, but it has it's advantages. What you have to pay to do business is considerably less than taxes here and the single biggest advantage, you don't have to put up with idiot simple servants every time you want to change the way you do things. Where, sorry, for obvious reasons.

Thanks suckers. Chrysler spent $100k on an ad thanking taxpayers for their money.

Did you have a choice? No.

The unions are only one piece of it, and management are doing their part in the theft of taxpayer cash.

Thanks Cons - for revealing yourselves as the corporate welfare specialists. Buttering your buddies buns with other peoples cash is fun, no?

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/12/chrysler-thanks-suckers-chrysler-spends.html

Thanks Cons - for revealing yourselves as the corporate welfare specialists.

When was that ever in doubt, hardboiled? There is also the bitter class hatred shining through. But it is funny that one never hears the call for means testing when the friends of the right waddle up to the trough for a bailout.
Besides,here in Canada the talk is of a loan, not a bailout, if I'm not mistaken.

harboiled, but soft of brain, if the Conservatives hadn't agreed to short term loans for two of the big three you'd be screaming that they were letting the workers down.

"Buttering your buddies buns with other peoples cash is fun, no?"

That line is a perfect example of Leftist Mental Disorder, your sick dude.

95% - Chance that the UAW was going to pull this little trick.

0% - Chance that I was going to be surprised by it.

"There is also the bitter class hatred shining through."

More Leftist Mental Disorder, a little too much Christmas Kool Aid?

A little off topic, but didn't Ontario Premier Bill Davis cut the PST on Ontario made vehicles to stimulate car sales and the Ontario (Detroit) car factories survived? Would this not be a better free market 'hand up' then the 'hand (loan) out'?

Funny how right wingers are silent about cuts to pay and bonuses "earned" by the executives of the car companies and banks. These are the people that ran their businesses into the ground, not the workers.

The UAW made huge concessions in 2007, including accepting two tier wages and outsourcing, giving up on a majority of overtime pay, and taking over health care costs. Meanwhile, GM CEO Wagoner made $10.2 million in 2006 and $14.4 million in 2007.

When the cost of labour is only 8 to 10% of total car cost, even if the workers were paid nothing, the car companies would still be in trouble.

" here in Canada the talk is of a loan, not a bailout"

You're not mistaken about "the talk", it's just irrelevant. Here's a timely comment I just picked up a few moments ago.

"...while the bailout comes in the form of loans that are to be repaid, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the public money is “obviously” at risk"

Obviously at risk. Did you get that? Insolvent manufacturers are getting billions in so-called loans and supposedly they'll be able to pay them back while getting themselves profitable. Try that idea at the bank if you need a loan.

Stupid fools! They're determined to go to extinction like the approx. million unionized unsustainable high-pay-and-benefits jobs lost in the demise of the American steel industry. Isn't the definition of idiocy repeating the same thing and expecting different results?

"Try that idea at the bank if you need a loan."

Didn't Harper just give them $25-$75 billion to "ease the money crunch?" Didn't the prime rate just drop to practically 0%? Why does it seem like the banks are hoarding the government's money?

Ulianov--it is NOT government money--it is taxpayer money. The government has no money to give out except what it taxes from us.

Ulianov hasn't been paying attention, has he? Most commenters agree that management and the unions have to take a cut in pay if these companies are going to survive.

The UAW will refuse, management will lay off workers or keep plants closed, the union will go on strike, the company will go bankrupt then no more union jobs at these plants. It's happened before and it will happen again.

I know this - if the UAW/CAW unions do not step up, I will never buy another vehicle made with their labor.

Yes, Ulianov, big 3 execs need to take a big hit. My suggestion is they be forced to resign, so somebody who knows how to lead a business, rather than run it into the ground, can take over.

It's repulsive to me that executives get this compensation for losing $billions. Having said that, even if all senior executives worked for free, it wouldn't stave off bankruptcy, unless labour costs, particularly legacy costs, are brought under control. It seems that big 3 can compete for workers on hourly pay, and they do actually make some good vehicles, particularly heavy duty and light trucks.

Their survival depends on doing a better job of identifying their markets, focussing on their product strengths, and getting their benefits costs reduced or at least under control. Their competitors' legacy costs will surely rise, which will eventually inflate the cost of their vehicles; but, will big 3 be around when that happens?

I am not at all optimistic they can survive; so, the taxpayer will be wasting their money, and still end up paying more for their cars. Somebody else will have to make trucks. Auto workers will pine for the days when only a quarter of their total income was "taxed" away.

Stephen, I hope, for the sake of beleagured big 3 shareholders, they don't swap (if that is possible) bonds for shares. Wouldn't that mean a double dilution of the stock - first, when bond actually issued, followed by further increase in share volume, with same/more debt level with new bond, or other debt, issues?

Like I said, I think they're screwed, and the UAW has zero choice but to take a big hit here.

Most commenters agree that management and the unions have to take a cut in pay if these companies are going to survive.Posted by: Bruce at December 26, 2008 2:46 PM

Hey bozo - if a for-profit enterprise can't exist without handouts from politicians - transferring money from one to another by force - then how why should that same for profit company exist?

The unions (bless their envious, angry, and greedy little hearts) are only part of the story. Crap management and shitty product are the rest of the story.

So, taxpayers get to pay for favored and irrelevant industries - for a short period.

Do it with your own money bozo - and buy their shares. No? Then you are just another faux-con prancing around pretending to be smart. Professional apologists to be sure.

Try Ayn Rand for a good read. It'll help dilute the partisan bailout brain you have.

I opened my wallet to give to the Salvation Army a couple of days ago, and there was a lying Con running around in there. Who knew?

ulainov

please, please, please, quit demonstrating your absolute and all encompassing ignorance

if you read a little in here you'll see that YES we do condem managment waste and stupidity (wages and percks)

also I'm a little more informed than most (you) about union supported waste in production

and as to your % of labour cost per vehicle, you lefties have no problem supporting a 0.000158% impact of man made CO2 on the climate, but 8-10% wage impact on auto production is irrelivent. This just shows you are ignorant of fact and understanding of manufacturing. You see a 1% factor CAM make the difference in many cases, especially when you consider ACCUMULATED effect.

Ken Lewenza email- cawpres@caw.ca Let him know what we think.

Ulianov,

I dont know anyone thinking that the whoile problem is solved through labour alone. But if direct labour is 7% of cost ot dealers (gving you a break on that one as opposed to cost to consumer) then there it still represnets about $1300 in costs. Even knocking it back by 20% or down to 5.5% of cost reduces cist by about 350....multiply that by 15,000,000 (number f cars they sell in NA) you get a significant annual contibution to salvaging the company.

As for whether or not they provided concessions in the past...who cares....they go benefits in the past....who cares....its about what life is like going forward.

The workers past (health and pension) and present (wages and bennies) are two of the 4 legs of the stool. Bondholders (suppliers of capital) and management are the other two. They also need to and will take cuts.

If the companies need a government handout then none of the stakeholders can say they are fine and arent to contribute anything. Clearly the companyies, as they are currently structured and costed cannot stand on their own. The CAW and UAW face the bleak choice of the jobs at lower wages or no jobs. Even at 80% of pay most of those workers are making more than would make in any other alternative they face.

The most damning piece of evidence is that other assemblers pay their work force less and face fewer restricitions on work rules and production. Unless you can point to the CAW acheiving higher levels of productivity and quality then the premium isnt jusified. Sucks to be them but other companies have faced similar situations and didnt get any money from the taxpayer.

This problem has been brewin for over 20 years, it is now at a boiling point, but all parties have been ignoring the inevitable.

If the union thinks being intransigent is helping the members it has a twisted view of help. Once those jobs go, they Are not coming back. The transplants will setup anywhere other than Oshawa because they dont want to have to deal with a thick headed union membership and its leaders. Thats just reality.

Keep the jobs you have for 80% of pay or have no job at all at even that rate of pay. The union is best to accept the reality, minimize their loses and ensure that there is a healthy employer and employment environment left when it is all over with. None of the stakeholders will be spared, and if any of them think so then none of the stakeholders will survive.

All contribute or all lose everything. I dont like it, its just the way it is.

Further to the 3:13 post, if you are a union member, include your union local and number.

hardboiled, soft brained, where did I say that I agreed with the short term loans? I didn't.

I think that GM and Chrysler should go into bankruptcy protection, that way the executive suite can be swept clean and the union contract will be toast.

And you are one sick dude.

They have two options:

1) Allow concessions voluntarily, and be part of the solution to the problem(although the problem is much larger then just autoworker pay)

2) Do not agree with concessions then the big 3 go to bankruptcy court. Then the judge forces them to make concessions (northwest air anyone?)

Either way, autoworker pay and benefits are going to go down.

And people are surprised by the UAW backpedalling because... ?

Michael Ramirez nailed it Dec. 19.

Limbaugh was correct: the $17B bailout wasn't a rescue of the Big 3, but of the UAW. They are about to find out the hard way the simple economic law that any good or service priced higher than market pricing leads to a surplus of that good or service.

It's a pity the Big 3 didn't tell congress to shove off with their handout with idiotic restrictions, and file for bankruptcy on their own. They could still operate this way, but could restructure, address the crippling legacy costs, and put their labour costs in line with the transplant competition. Then, if congress would get rid of idiotic CAFE standards and other business-hampering laws, the automakers could perhaps concentrate on making cars that people want to buy, rather than moronic little putt-putt golf carts that lie optimistically in lots, waiting for a sale.

The best thing congress could do for the Big 3 would be to ease oil drilling restrictions. More cheap gas = more large vehicles that (North) Americans prefer, vs. the H-O scale vehicles the government is trying to shoehorn everyone into.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

For those who seek historical parallels, google the History of The British Motor Inductry. Unions demanding and getting government bailouts for unproductive industries due to bad work-force practices. Ultimately, of course, the bad workforce is the result of bad management; but I digress.

A quick Q: Why is Ford doing so well in comparison to GM and Chrysler?

tj, I ignore you. Now, what were we talking about?

GYM:

I have "read a little in here" and all too often it's a knee-jerk, "always blame the union" theme. Unions don't manage the car companies, they don't design the cars, they don't control the price of fuel, they don't approve bank loans, and they don't ask for free trade agreements with countries that refuse to buy products manufactured in North America.

Since you don't know anything about me, assuming that you know more than I do about organized labour or manufacturing is presumptious.

Ulianov
Everyone here knows they all screwed up, except perhaps, you. Union members, management and politicians are all complicit.
Tell us something we don't know. There are people out there whose wages are one-third of that of UAW and CAW members make. Yet their taxes are expected to pay for those who refuse to make concessions to save their own jobs. Quit your whining and sell your propoganda to the EU.

Ulninov
Wheather you like it or not it is up to the OWNERS how they run thier companies not the employees.
This does not give the employers the right to ask the public for bailouts to keep over payed employees employed.
If empoyees do not like thier employment than they should seek new jobs in other sectors.
Having a JOB is a privlage not a right.
Survival is a right and you dont have to have a job for that.

Sgt Lejaune at December 26, 2008 12:11 PM

The union establishment isn't fighting to build cars, they want early retirement and medical plans on the taxpayer's dime. What they really don't want is bankruptcy, new management, new young workers, and a fresh start with them and their old management buddies out on their asses.

But they are going exactly about it to achieve the unwanted.

Well, Ghost of Ed, why did the government bail out the banks using taxpayers money? What sort of concessions did the banks make?

You're the one who brought up the banks Ulianov, not me. I am totally opposed to the way banks were bailed out. Now name something else I didn't mention. If you want to argue about things that were not said you must be running out of ammunition. But I suspect you have .45 calibre shoes to throw, and a low calibre brain, so the ammunition you're running out of is of no concern to me.

Did you run out of booze Ed, or are you always such a miserable prick?

Ulianov. Sorry, the shoe missed.

RW: "Why is Ford doing so well in comparison to GM and Chrysler?"

What do GM and Chrysler have in common?

http://tinyurl.com/6ca3co

It's spelled Cerberus.

Top Wall Street stories of the week?

http://tinyurl.com/8nmu49

"What sort of concessions did the banks make? "

Ownership, and control of the company.

I'd say that's pretty large.

Folks, don't get the circumstances of the US and Canadian banks mixed up. Some pretty big US banks in the US have folded. The ones that remain standing have received significant bailout money from the US government to stay afloat.

I believe ulinov made reference to the Canadian bank "bailout." Allow me to please set the record straight for ulinov, and others.

The Canadian Banks were not "bailed out." The Canadian banks sold CMHC-insured mortgages to the federal government. This was done to provide cash to the banks, since some of their main sources of capital was drying up (i.e. the US banks going bust). The Canadian government is now the beneficiary of the cash flow being generated by those mortgages.

The Banks would have preferred to keep those mortgages, because they are high quality assets providing a regular, high margin, income stream. CMHC mortgages are high quality mortgage, NOT sub-prime. But, without access to capital to continue lending, something needed to happen.

You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. The CAW is choosing the path of being the problem.
There has been so many job losses in the states, that this attitude won't go over well with Joe the Plumber types. The trouble is that THE ONE is having to deal with the CAW cashing in it's chits. That and that career turd Barney Frank defending this larceny.
If this is the CAW's position, then, PMSH, LET THEM FAIL!

Dan
I did not assume any reference to Canadian bank bailouts. You did that.

ulianov

""""""always blame the union" theme. Unions don't manage the car companies, they don't design the cars, they don't control the price of fuel, they don't approve bank loans, and they don't ask for free trade agreements with countries that refuse to buy products manufactured in North America. """""

and the unions ARE deserving

no, they don't manage, design, and all the rest, but their demands certainly effect all these areas, and more. as GM in oshawa was at one time a ciustomer of mine, I got a rather up close and dirty look at their operation. when they paid $500+ for a service call that actually took 15 minutes of my time..... well you git the point, and all this because of UNION rules

and probably 1/3 of all my customers were union shops and the same song and dance routine applied in all of them, so don't talk union and union effects throught your hat to me

there is a place in the work world for unions, just not the unions we have now

Ed. It was my post, not Dan's.

And, I assumed nothing. I was responding to ulianov's 2:26 p.m. post which made specific reference to the Canadian government's recent purchase of CMHC-insured mortgages. I was trying to educate him as to the nature of the recent arrangement between the federal government and the Canadian chartered banks, that it was not a bailout.

I didn't "call out" anybody else.

This old forest of decay & decrepitating reduction of production. Should have burned by now to make way for new vigorous new growth that will be fresh . One with innovation & new eye's to see opportunities. Keeping these old scarp heaps in tax money is only prolonging the inevitable. There utter collapse. If a farmer does not accommodate new techniques they go under. Its the same here.
The fact the Union is willing to kill their own members jobs just about says it all. The of course will just move to another Union. As the government with management they too are entrapped by entitlement dementia.
I suspect the management is just as bad, if not worse with their bonus's & such.
Its a guild gone corrupt.
To expect the public in effect to buy a car they will never see to keep necrotic inefficient plants open with wages that exceed product selling, is irresponsible. How are we going to feel when we get the bill for their incompetence with Ingratitude. Sick of bailing out billionaires & greedy people of all stripes.
I belong to a Union because I was forced to be. CUPE is just as bad . There anti-Semitic, Islamist infiltrated Marxists. By vote & actions. Who steals workers money to support the NDP. Which 9 out of 10 workers detest.
Lets heal the woodland. Let it crash & burn, than grow anew in strength. After all its the green thing to do eh?

The reason for the ''bailout' is because of the importance to the overall economy of this particular industry. Think of what would happen to the Saudi economy if oil production stopped. The auto industry isn't as supreme as oil, but GM's payroll is almost 9 billion a year, and a 1998 strike knocked a full percentage point off the US economic growth that quarter.

ulianov - you wrote:

"Unions don't manage the car companies, they don't design the cars, they don't control the price of fuel, they don't approve bank loans, and they don't ask for free trade agreements with countries that refuse to buy products manufactured in North America."

I disagree with your view. The CEO of the car companies, in their management, MUST include the union presence and its effect. This includes costs of production (i.e., contracting out, out-of-country contracts, costs of car production or less man-hours of work etc).Research and design has to be considered with the union in mind as to costs of production. The CEO must also consider the demands of the union in attempting to obtain bank loans, for a bank may very well say that the union costs are so high that the profit margin is too low to provide for future investment by that car company. As for countries that refuse to buy products manufactured in N. America - that's also a result of the union costs which have driven the price of production beyond the carrying capacity of the local consumers.

The union costs are not just 8% of production, but include, for example, an approximate $1,600 per car 'legacy costs' for retiree's health and benefits for their pension. The legacy costs are an enormous drain.

Then, normally in hard times, an industry would reduce production. But GM's union agreements mean that it can't legally close plants or lay off workers without enormous penalties! That's what the union has done!!! Get it, Ulianov? The union has transformed a production industry into a service centre for workers.

The industry can't get enough money to research and develop new cars; it can't reduce the costs of production because it can't reduce even the NUMBER of workers! It can't close plants. Its only reason for existence...is to serve those workers. To hell with car production.

Even if GM halts its production, it STILL has to pay the workers, and their pensions and health care and other benefits. That is, what the union has done is to set up a situation where the car industry can't reduce its production because its production has NOTHING to do with cars but with workers. It can't lay them off, can't reduce its numbers of workers..and when they retire, the benefits are an enormous cost. Those union legacy costs are an enormous drain and this union-caused legacy is the basis of much of what ails the auto industry.

Toyota, Honda, Nissan didn't get trapped by the unions, didn't transform from car manufacturers into worker service centres. They are able to turn their profits into profitable new designs, which the Big 3, with their different focus on Benefits To The Workers - were unable to fund. For example, GM put only 7 billion on research and development vs Toyota's 15.3 billion.

As for 'bailing out the banks', please remember that the banks are not unionized, and the purchase of insured mortgages has nothing to do with production costs of anything.

This will go down as one of the most cynical acts of political manipulation ever. The UAW agreed to one thing with President Bush, knowing full well President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats were big recipients of union largesse and would let them slide. They read the situation correctly.
- From Kate's excerpt at the top of the thread.

It might also be fair to criticize Bush for cynicism. I think Bush desperately wanted to NOT have the failures happen on his watch now that he's only a few weeks away from vacating the WH. I think Cheney himself said that they didn't want to be Hoover to Obama's FDR. But that was already the case before the auto bailouts.

"The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now — or the only option will be bankruptcy."
- Bush

Well, Mr. Bush, the really hard decision was to let the free market do what it does, not to to suspend the rules of the free market in order to "save the free market"

Bush has broken the law with this bailout. At the very least he should have used maximum leverage and structured this deal so that the loan was not made UNTIL the agreement was inked and delivered to the WH. Someone above mentioned that the loan might have to be called. But how do you call a loan on a bankrupt?

That he didn't do this proves (to me, anyway) that he was more concerned about his legacy than being the defender of the looted taxpayer. I am bitterly disappointed with Bush's second term. I think he's the Repub's Jimmy Carter.

Well said, ET, well said! But just remember that "Ulianov" is simply the codename for Jack Layton. I've never seen any divergence in views between our favourite Radical Leftie on here and the Video Professor.

This should be a vivid reminder to ALL Canadians of where the NDP stands when it comes to our tax dollars.

Colin from Mission B.C. at December 26, 2008 5:43 PM

Some pretty big US banks in the US have folded. The ones that remain standing have received significant bailout money from the US government to stay afloat./i

Well, not true. Wells Fargo, American Express (now a bank) and, I think, Bank of America (?) to name but three. Many banks didn't touch the ABS scams with a barge pole and are now profit(eer)ing. Good luck to them.

Me No Dhimmi at December 26, 2008 7:15 PM
continuers BDS; what will he, and many iotgher similarly deranged, do when the Messiah is "in power"?

Blame Bush, I expect. At some time, though, the narrative will cease to be cr3edible to even the most politicval driven and obsessed people.

Shamrock...re equity holders....they are toast anyway, dilution doesnt matter.

Why Ford is better off. they didnt get as bad as GM and they started the turnaround a little earlier, and they have been turning around faster, smaller more focussed company, and they have a brilliant CEO who turned around Boeing.

GM needs new mgt and real cold shower to shock the culture into change, that and getting rid of half the brands, but this is old news. That is the shocking thing, none of the perscriptions are new.

3 rd point, I dont think the report was blaming Bush, the report was balming the unions for making a deal and now reneging. Obama would be wise to enforce the deal, if only to reinforce the authority of the Presidency.

RW: I don't suffer from BDS, which is an irrational hatred for the man for no reason.
I like the man. I was a very strong Bush supporter in his first term but I consider his second term a disaster, for a variety of reasons not related to this post.

Nor am I a blind, deaf and dumb robotic partisan. I call 'em as I see 'em. His handling of the financial meltdown has been a disaster. I think he panicked and was probably the victim of a elaborate hoax.

Lots of strong conservative thinkers, including Michelle Malkin, are disllusioned with Bush which is not to say that I will not miss him when the execrable marxist thug takes over.

My point was simply this: giving the auto companies the money BEFORE they signed and delivered the agreement was DUMB. I can only come up with a single theory as to why he did this: he wanted to forestall the failure til he was out of office.

BTW, federal debt DOUBLED under Bush. That is to say he added as much debt as was added from the founding of the country in 1776 up to his inauguration. He also failed to use his veto pen.

Look, folks.

The CAW supports the NDP. What further proof do you need that they are evil?

[quote]Then, if congress would get rid of idiotic CAFE standards and other business-hampering laws, the automakers could perhaps concentrate on making cars that people want to buy, rather than moronic little putt-putt golf carts that lie optimistically in lots, waiting for a sale.[/quote]
Mhb23re,

You have identified the BIG chip that is in Play... The Union are bluffing for the Dem's and holding out for Boxer’s "waiver" RE: California NEW Co2 Regs

The Big 3 need to stop playing the Stupid game & declare bankruptcy. If they sign the waiver they don't have a chance in hell.

The thing that is not obvious is the amount of Money that the Gov’t has already spent on Alt Energy R&D. Its in the Trillions over ~>40 years

R.W. @ 12:36 p.m.

Point taken, and thanks for the correction. I didn't mean to imply ALL U.S. banks received bailout proceeds, but indeed, that's what I posted.

However, the main thrust of my post stands: interbank lending largely ground to a standstill -- banks that remain healthy going concerns have had traditional sources of capital dry up.

Previous post was responding to RW @ 7:36 p.m. (not 12:36 p.m.).

Ulianov said: "Unions don't manage the car companies, they don't design the cars, they don't control the price of fuel, ....."

Unions are purely and simply about control, by whatever means possible. Despite their constant mantra as 'protecting the working man' they really don't give a rats' potoot about anyone other than their own worker and more importantly, their own union management.

Whomever else might get hurt is irrelevant.

Witness the transit workers in Ottawa - one of the worst early winters ever and everyone else from retailers to volunteer workers for shelters and the Sally Ann are hurt by their strike. Not to mention the 25,000 people in town for the World Juniors (Canada leading Czech 8-1).

Yet the transit workers, some of the best paid and benefited amongst us, are striking during the most severe recession in a lifetime, for even more wages and benefits. It's obscene.

Hundreds of thousands work daily in the 'retail trades' for $10 - $12/hr with no benefits, yet they still do their best to serve us well and with a smile. Union workers by contrast, are invariably unhappy, often dislike their employer and believe they are used and abused.

A quick example. Every fall I go fishing with cousins who work for a major, unionized employer and their father - my uncle - who has retired from B.C. Ferries. The boys show up in their nice new shiny F-150's - company vehicles and using company gas.

They pay no ferry fees to the Island, because their dad, as a retirement perk, has a LIFETIME pass that includes vehicles. And because the union is a tight little club they come across together - three pickup trucks, one pulling a 25' 5th wheel. He just shows the ferry loaders his lifetime pass. tells his fellow club member that the boys are with him and they all get waved aboard.

Some of my cousins have wives who work within the medical system and they too know how to work the system to a fare-thee-well, taking every advantage possible.

Yet around the campfire, they can't seem to stop bitching and complaining about their employers, both past and present. Oh,and discussing the many little ways they find to 'screw' their companies in order to get what they so justly deserve as 'good, hardworking employees'.

The rest of us, who were self-employed and had to rely on satisfying our customers, who have no pensions or medical plans and who have had to save for our own retirement,have just given up discussing such matters with them.

There is just no point. It's like 'union derangement syndrome' - they just can't grasp any other view other than 'class struggle' of the 'working man' against the capitalist oppressor.

It would be funny if it didn't tick me off so much.

Make them go bankrupt and reorganize if they can. If they come up with products the public wants they will do OK. Other automobile companies have failed and the world is still going around the sun. How many besides me remember Nash, Studebaker and America Motors (Rambler)? They had pretty good vehicles but the companys failed. I started off with a Dodge, tried Ford's, Chevy., Plymouth, Pontiac, Dodge again.etc. both cars and pickups. Now own Honda and Toyota and will never go back to the "Big Three" no matter what the hype. I don't owe them any favours considering some of the crap they sold me over the years.

Why Ford is better off?

Ford builds better heavy duty trucks.

When the wash is done and the rest of the "Big 3" has gone under, the Ford Truck division will go on for a while afterward because Ford heavy duty Trucks are a good product that the Japanese cannot yet replace.

"Then, normally in hard times, an industry would reduce production. But GM's union agreements mean that it can't legally close plants or lay off workers without enormous penalties! That's what the union has done!!!"

This assertion perfectly exemplifies your patently naive, disjointed analysis of this matter. It is not the unions, but rather the corporate/government compacts that compel specific artificial employment levels. Government subsidies and loan guarantees obligate these practices, not the unions. As an example, GM is closing 20 plants during January. This was done without prior consultation or union approval, obviously.

I can assure you that during contract negotiations, companies surpass your level of sophistication in these affairs. The various manufacturers will, as a matter of course, employ cost accountants who can well anticipate the labour component of production costs (primarily a fixed cost). This manner of forecasting analysis can, on occasion, obliviate certain significant variables, in this instance credit scarcity and burgeoning healthcare costs.

The corporation freely and purposedly contracted these commitments, and they do not affect relative share value, cash flow or access to credit to the extent the diminution of revenue has.

You should also remember that the employees of non-union manufacturers personally benefit by union presence in their industry just as surely as UAW/CAW members.

joebaloni,

Maybe 2nd year will shed some light for you. Cost accountants? ... are you talking about the same ones that managed to catch the fast sinking boat?

BTW: Can you tell me how all the single moms (and their offspring) benefit by throwing their tax dollars into the begging cups of UAW/CAW members?

Sooo, the UAW has chosen the bankruptcy route. Interesting & stupid move for sure.

Once GM & Chrysler go broke the union contracts will be dead & so will the UAW.

GM had an opportunity 15 years ago to be miles ahead of their competition but instead elected to be incompetent!

“According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids”.

So all of us suffered with outrageous fuel prices, which has been a MASSIVE contributor to the economic crisis. When I saw the movie “Who Killed The Electric Car”, I was hoping this day would come! They robed ALL OF US of a fantastic opportunity. LET EM SINK they deserve it!

Google EV1 and see how far ahead they would have been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Few Americans support the bailout and none support the unions getting a free ride on their dime. The old adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune is still true. That being said Barack Obama will have to be a tough negotiator. What is at play here is a second term as President. If he does not show the resolve to deal firmly with the unions he can kiss a second term good bye.

no guff - nice outline; yes, that's very much the attitude of the Protected Workers, who operate within an adversarial mindset, and yet are the elite among us all, with their protected status, their many benefits, their security from being held accountable for their 'work'.

joebaloni - nope, your comments are, to be blunt, full of baloney.

Rubbish- what 'corporate/government compacts'? How about moving your mindset into reality rather than the fictional narratives of the 19th century? Hmm? There's no such thing as a corporate-government compact.

Unions are no longer guilds working for the safety and well-being of the 'workers'. They are now, themselves, enormously wealthy corporations and their agenda is - to increase their profits. Unlike a genuine manufacturing corporation that produces goods and services for people, a union gets its money from being a parasitic leech on its members. It wants to increase its members to increase its source of money. And it wants to increase the income/benefits of those members so that it can increase its dues/income. That is, now, the ONLY reason for unions - their own huge profits as being, themselves, a corporation.

And no, when the unions insisted on these high cost clauses, this wasn't any result of government subsidies or loan guarantees. Heh - how do you arrive at this nonsense?

The cause was the Union Corporate Agenda of increasing the Union Parasitic Income - by raising their dues, and they could raise their dues because their new contract included a clause on no plant closings, no worker layoffs and so on. How do they get these results? Well, as parasties, and latched onto the bodies of the workers, they can bleed the worker so that no work can be done in the plant. 'Bleeding the worker' so that he can't work is a metaphor for 'going on strike'. If you read my post, you'll see that a strike cost the US economy billions.

So, you are quite wrong; the GM Production Corporation did NOT 'freely' choose the Union Corporation's contract. Unlike the Union Corporation, which has that 'Strike Card' in its hand, the GM Production Corporation has no such powers to affect the outcome of contract 'negotiations'. Try again, joe baloni.

I repeat, GM can't lay off workers or close plants. Closing plants doesn't mean for the month of January; it means the end, 'finito'. Get it?

Dear god, do you think that a cost accountant predicts the future? What about the future when the parasitic corporation, which feeds off the workers, has increased the costs of production beyond the capacity of the Real Corporation (eg, GM) from getting any profit from the sale of the cars? This profit is needed, to be put into R&D, and to renovate plants, buy new equipment etc. Of course, your cost accountants predicted this current recession, eh? Hmm.

And how the heck do non-union employees benefit from the existence of Union Corporations? After all, these unions drive the costs of goods up, up, up. That's why non-unionists purchase goods that are built by companies that are NOT unionized. The union shops goods are too expensive. The Union Corporations have driven the costs of production out of the capacity of people to purchase them....Get it?

Cheers. I suggest you read a bit on the effects of unions in our modern world.

"You should also remember that the employees of non-union manufacturers personally benefit by union presence in their industry just as surely as UAW/CAW members."

How can I forget something that never was?

There's a bigger picture here too, that none of us should forget. And that is the real cost of a new auto/truck to the so-called average Canadian. with fairness to the Big3 and their challenges, we also see that the Japanese auto makers have experienced a similar slowdown, their worst drop in 40 years. This is not just a Big3 problem. Now here's the rub.

There certainly is a sector in our society that can buy whatever they want, whenever they want, but this is not what drives the economy, it's the so-called middle and upper-middle class where most people fall into. And we are the ones that spend and borrow, and support, the economy, by and large.

Has anybody really considered the real cost of an auto or truck up until now? I have only once bought a brand new vehicle, and it wasn't exactly brand new. It was a 97 Aerostar, that was used by the dealer for a year as a runabout, so it has 10k on it, and it cost $16k. Payments were affordable, around 350 a month. And that's it for new.

My current vehicles were both 3 years old when they were purchased, and, again, payments are 300 and 400 a month....affordable. An Explorer and a Jetta, both with lots of options, but, affordable.

There were lots of nicer, newer, plusher, more expensive makes and models at the time of purchase of these, but, payments were much more, despite how cool they would have looked in the driveway.

Consider how many people do buy brand new. Loan or lease, these people are doing it to themselves. A $40000 loan over 5 years, if you paid taxes up front, is $750/mo. A lease is similar, plus taxes. Lots of new 4x4s running around cost more than that each month. These people are not making 100k per year, it's all credit, and we've hit the wall.

And now the economy hits the skids......who is going to run out and buy anything in this price range, whose job/company has slowed down business? My wife is in real estate, it is slow, and I'm in telecom, and while the company appears solid, you still wonder if they might consider cuts to boost share prices. Dumber things have happened.

Needless to say, we are not considering -any- major purchases in the near future, and I don't think the attitude is much different anywhere else in my neck of the woods.

The price of vehicles has gotten completely out of hand, and only cheap credit, up to this point has saved the industry. We are now past the point of cheap credit to be able to revive it, at least in the short term. The cost of vehicles has to be 'reset' to make them more attractive to buyers......

Ever noticed the 25%-33% premium on new Canadian vehicles vs American vehicles? And we pay GST on top of that, no wonder the industry is in trouble, and will continue to be. This isn't just a Big3 problem, it's an INDUSTRY problem!

Maybe we'll see a return of a bare bones runabout, much like the K-car idea, where options are once again options, and not standard equipment, keeping prices down, and stimulating buying. Otherwise, like myself, I expect to keep my vehicles, and do repairs as needed, rather than tie myself up in extended payments over many years. This is NOT what the industry wants, but the cost of vehicles drives this mindset

Back to basics, people!

The bankruptcy question keeps coming up. In more normal times I would agree, this is what should be done. bankruptcy is a process not an endpoint. Insolvency is an endpoint.

In Ch 11 Bankruptcy, companies get protection from creditors while they reorganize. What is important is that they have financing in place to tide them through the bankruptcy process. This is called Debtor in Possession financing, or DIP.

With this credit crisis DIP financing has disappeared. Implication is that going into CH11 without DIP quickly puts you into insolvency, where the company isnt reorganized it is shut down. The difference in value between on going companies and ones that are no longer going concerns are enormous.

Ch 11 with DIP means that a judge makes the decisions. It takes time and do not underestimate the complexity of a reorg of a company the size of GM. The question is will, assuming you could line up DIP, that customers would continue to buy or would it be a slow bleed off?

The above question is subject to much debate. Some point to Delta and United as peoples willingness to fly on a bankrupt airline, surely a more dangerous proposition than buying a car from a bankrupt company. Others point to some surveys...it is a known unknown.

But the key is DIP. No DIP means Ch 11 is a worthless proposition. One of th options is for the government to provide DIP, or guarantee it. This would be in keeping with its actions. Problem is the solution for the moment is almost CH 11 but no enforcement from a judge. In Ch 11 a judge could just tell the union their new wage rates and they can pound sand, there is no recourse.

Ch 11 bankruptcy IS the right answer, as GM without its obligations at current levels, debt, wages and pension, is definitely a going concern or could be. Chrysler is somewhat of a different pony, its medium term viability is in serious question.

So the lack of DIP, due o the credit crisis, means the government is a legitimate option as lender of last resort. But the government really should be sticking as close to the normal process as it could. The apparent games from the UAW should be severely punished, if they are happening, as they threaten to bring the whole house down. Playing for time is a legit option, till a GM insolvency wouldnt threaten the whole edifice, I would say in a year.

If you follow the play for time option then the UAW is going to get a broomrape like no other. All, rpeat all parties need to contribute. The UAW has to recoginize that if those jobs disappear they are gone forever, the wage rates are gone anyway.

What should be kept in mind about the lowly 10% labour cost on vehicles of the big 3 is that they are for assembling parts procured from other entities. These costs are not for "manufacturing" these vehicles but for putting them together, think IKEA.

Most people do support the loan guarantee's to the big three but also feel it is neccesary for the unions to make concessions.

Fact is unions took advantage of weak management but also (false) free trade tied their hands, and now the industry fails.

We need to support this industry for national security as well as economic stability... We should however tie some strings to manage the industry better, bring the wages on to par with other manufacturing, and make the switch to clean transportation.

All this is possible, try this for a read...

http://www.freewebs.com/elmwood_transcona/beyondkyoto.htm

In my petty little ideal world the management and union would be shown the door so that real managers and workers can start designing and building cars and trucks that real people want, can afford to buy and run.

Can't help but ask ,but what exactly did the bankers etc give up for their billions in bailouts?How many captains of finance and industry are lowering their 4 figure an hour salarys?Same dicks that got us into this mess are to be trusted to get us out?

I have a lot of question about this auto bailout.

It has been bandied about how the Big 3 have "labour" costs of 70 odd bucks an hour vs 40 odd dollars for the imports. And that these "labour" costs is about 7% of a vehicle price.

Now these labour costs, does that include the wages and benefits of the non-production line staff such as clerks, managers, stock keepers etc?

Does the Big 3 include these costs in the"hourly" $70?

Do the imports, do they include the same thing, or are they excluding something?

Legacy costs....well I understand if a company has a defined benefit pension plan, and the stock market does really good, they can have a "contribution holiday". They don't have to contribute if the pension fund performance matches or exceeds the company contribution amount. But if it performs poorly....

Now with companies with a defined contribution plan, where they match a workers contribution for dollar for dollar, can they take a holiday or do they have to contribute regardless?

Which plan is really cost effective?

Also, this financial meltdown, crisis, recession/borderline depression, what ever the name is, to me it is a market correction. People got too greedy. Too shady. Too arrogant. And they got spanked.

But unfortunately, the culprits will basically go free, maybe with some taxpayer money.

But you know what? This meltdown/market correction is probably the best thing to happen to businesses. Another excuse to get some concessions from the workers, whether they be union or not. What will the spin be this time? Shareholder value? Maybe, it is wearing thin. Corporate survival? Perhaps, only if the CEO's lead by example, thin chance tho. Saving your jobs? That's a good one. Will the product come down in price while one takes a wage cut/freeze? Unlikely.

But managing by fear, always brings out the best in workers.

AS for the Big 3 losing money on each car they sell, ever notice with the Japanese imports, it is our price, our finance rate and if you don't like it, too bad. Tried to deal on a Rav4. Price went up from one week to another because of the "gas" prices, interest rates were not competitive/lousy terms and the dealership's attitude was if you don't buy from us, you're buying crap. But alas a '08 Ford Fusion V6 AWD loaded is now in the drive way and at 38 miles to the gallon (imperial), far better deal than the Rav. 6 grand off MSRP at 0% hey.....and yes it is a great car.

Maybe the Big 3 should be a bit firmer on their pricing. Who knows?

But the way I see it, we are in the midst of a market correction, businesses and corporations will use it to their advantage to squeeze something more out of the workers, and the taxpayers are getting hoodwinked.

ET, one of your best comments that is so true and worth repeating.

Remember, the unionization of Canada prevents a market economy because unionization changes the focus of that business from consumer satisfaction to employee satisfaction.

my $0.02

in 1978 i bought a 1976 GMC 1/2 ton for $4500.

in 2006 i bought a 1999 FORD 1/2 ton for $6500.

the GMC lasted a decade. the Ford may too.

a "new" 1/2 ton is at least $20,000. too much

Propagandist ET/Goebbels repeats her hateful talking points over and over while the masses of small dead minds lap it up:

*Unions are "enormously wealthy corporations and their agenda is - to increase their profits."

Proof! I challenge you to prove that the net worth of any large union is "enormous" relative to that of large corporations, or even relative to the top 100 wealthy individuals in Canada or the US.

*The Union Corporations have driven the costs of production out of the capacity of people to purchase them....Get it?

Prove it! Japanese and European cars are often more expensive.

*Unlike the Union Corporation, which has that 'Strike Card' in its hand, the GM Production Corporation has no such powers to affect the outcome of contract 'negotiations'.

...other than lobbying governments to change labour laws, closing plants or moving production elsewhere. When workers go on strike, they not only deprive the employer of production, they deprive themselves of income.

Etc.

And demonizing organized labour by calling them parasites is a nice touch...it certainly makes Goebbels proud.

These lies, and lies told by the likes of "No Guff," making up anectodal crap about BC Ferries workers using company trucks and company gas to go on camping trips shows how fearful the right wing is of true freedom of association and true democracy.

Ulianov

I've worked with many union parasites over the years.....endless illnesses, endless time off, barely adequate when at work, anything but productive. Oh, and they get the promotions too, because they have the most seniority, bless their useless hearts! Parasites is an apt term for these useless pieces of sh!te.

There is no democracy in unions, only a shell of one, every now and then, when it suits the union boss' needs. Otherwise, it's pure dictatorship. Democracy is just a useful tool for unionists when it suits their needs.

Ulinov; thanks for the rant. Lenin would be proud how you tow the party line and do not allow anything, not even common sense, to stand in the way of propaganda. "I challenge you to prove the net worth of any large union" etc is a ludicrois point as these "large unions" have no hard investment in anything to accumulate their wealth other than fact that they ARE parasitical and suck wealth out of both employee and employer. If you can not see this one point then there is no hope for rational thought from you. P.S. - Goebbels like Taliban Jack Layton was a socialist first and foremost, your rantings might work at the Thurday town hall meetings of the NDP,as proposed by Laydown but is not palatable to taxpayers.

Sure, DanBC, there's no accountability in unions (according to your) except that unions don't operate in a vacuum: they have to operate under financial and electoral regulations set up by governments. As for your anectodal "endless illnesses, endless time off, barely adequate when at work, anything but productive" bullshit..this type of behaviour goes on everywhere. It's up to management to get rid of these people, and don't respond with "the union won't allow it" because there is NO contract anywhere that prevents employers from firing incompetent people. I challenge you to show one.

useless:

Why don't you discuss this with ET/Goebbels...she claims that the unions are in fact rich corporations. Unions are not parasitical because they provide a service, which is why unionized workers make an average of 20% more than non-unionized workers.

And Joseph Goebbels was not a socialist, he was a fascist, like many of the commentators here.

ahh ulinaov/lberia, there you go again, introducing red herrings:

First, you begin by insulting me and everyone here. Is that the definitive behaviour of a leftist?

Second, you introduce a fallacious comparison by trying to claim that unions are not 'enormously wealthy' until and unless their assets are comparable to that of large corporations or to the wealth of the top 100 wealth individuals in Canada/US. That's an irrelevant comparison.

However, most certainly, unions are 'enormously wealthy'; their assets are worth in the billions; (Trade Union Investment Policies; Nathan Belfer); unions put their money into purchasing land, buildings, mortgages, investing those pension funds in numerous 'capitalist ventures'..such as the Toronto Maple Leafs. Unions like the Teacher's Union, CUPE, CAW, United Steelworkers and so on, have ENORMOUS funds to invest in various, capitalist...and I'll repeat that word...capitalist schemes.

Trade unions do NOT post their asset value, ulinaov/lberia, so it isn't that easy to find out ALL their assets (Belfer). But, if the Ontario Teacher's Union Pension Plan could buy BCE for 51.7 Billion, then, I guess they are doing OK in the top 100 wealthy individuals.

Then, there's yet another fallacious analogy, with your ambiguous 'Japanese and European cars are often more expensive'. What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying that a Lamborghini is more expensive than a Pontiac G3..which is more expensive than a Honda Fit..

Oh, right, sure...GM can get the government to change labour laws, like..for example..outlawing unions? Heh. Try again, ulinaov/lberia. And you didn't read what I wrote - the GM labour contract doesn't permit the company to close its plants. Got that? Or reduce its worker numbers. OK?

Poor workers..when they go on strike they don't get pay. Yes they do; it's called strike pay, from the union's investments, investments, investments.

I repeat, modern labour unions are parasites. This isn't demonizing them; this is an accurate description of HOW they get their money. From the WAGES of the workers, which they then INVEST in capitalist ventures. Does this money get returned to the worker? Absolutely not. Part, and only part, gets doled out for pensions, medical benefits. That's it but this is nothing that the individual couldn't invest for on his own.

No, poor besotted ulianov/lberia, I'm not lying about unions. They are parasitic corporations, out to get money via the dues of workers, and more and more workers. They invest this money; they are, themselves, capitalist corporations and do zilch for the worker except to hinder his freedom, and importantly, drive up the costs of goods, and drive industries to other countries.

They do NOTHING that the worker, if had that money taken by them for his dues, could not do for himself. A bunch of people could pool their money and invest it, and get the same pension and more benefits as the union provices. And it would be their choice, their agenda, their freedom. And would keep consumer prices LOW. And would keep industries here in N. America rather than driving them out of the country.

Now, ulianov/lberia - provide some facts of your own. Without the insults. I know you are a leftist but that doesn't mean that you should do the 'leftist thing'..which is to insult people. Be different. Just stick to the issues rather than the insults.

look, ulianov/lberia, unions do indeed drive up the wages of some workers - the elites - but THINK what this does.

The wages go up, and the union 'take' (dues) goes up! Hurrah for the Union Corporation! It has increased its own income!

Oh, and the cost of producing the goods goes up. Hmm. So, it costs that same worker MORE to purchase goods, because the Unions, in their greed for more and more and more and more money, have driven up wages and benefits and pensions..and so, these costs are all passed on to the consumers. And the cost of living for all workers..goes up. And up. And up. Due to those Union Corporations.

Unions were useful in the 19th c. They have now become not merely useless but harmful to workers. All workers. That's because safety, pensions, health care, etc have been taken over by the government OR by private insurance and pension companies which the individual worker can invest in on his own.

So, if there weren't any unions, then, the worker would be left with MORE money - not merely his dues, but the COST OF LIVING wouldn't have zoomed skyhigh. Therefore, the individual would be able to invest his money into private health insurance and pensions...and..and..the cost of consumer goods wouldn't be so high. And factories wouldn't have to move out of the country. Or go broke. Or seek govt assistance.

So, lberia/ulianov, your devotion to unions is naive at best and ignorant of history and economics as well.

Unions are parasites. Parasites. Parasites.

I am sticking to the issues, ET/Goebbels. You have not provided any proof for the simple things that I asked.

Pension plans and health/welfare benefits are not the same as assets or operating funds. You know that, but you persist in lying. And since unions do not post their assets, how can you go on claiming that they are "wealthy corporations?" PROOF! Not your partisan speculation.

What fallacious analogies? You are claiming that union interference has priced goods(ie. cars)out of the market. You are wrong. For example, a Toyota Corolla costs more than a Ford Focus...so don't be obtuse. I'm not talking about Lamborghinis...red herrings indeed!

Corporations sign agreements that they can live with. It's their own fault if they don't.

Strikers get a fraction of their regular pay, and only for a short time, so don't make it sound like strikes occur without any thought to self inflicted financial losses. Furthermore, over 95% 0f bargaining is settled without a strike.

Yes, unions invest money in the market. So what? On the one hand you call them socialist parasites or worse, on the other hand you complain that they invest their money. In general, organized labour believes in the marketplace and uses it like any other organization would. And you keep forgetting: Unions are highly regulated by governments, so stop lying and trying to make it sound like criminal behaviour is occurring all the time.

Your lies not withstanding, I have provided facts. All you provide is partisan rhetoric. If you don't want insults, start providing proof instead of your pedantic, partisan propaganda.

ET/Goebbels:

You are a friggin university professor...you don't work in an environment where safety and health issues can affect you. Stop claiming that government regulations have solved problems in these areas, because they haven't, and I know this from personal experience. Moreover, governments like the BC Liberals have gutted the Labour Code and handcuffed the Compensation Board to the extent that workers have gone back at least 50 years in their health, safety and general working conditions.

Pensions? How's your nice university pension doing? Those people with RSPs will probably have to work for another 5-10 years to be able to survive retirement, so stop being a hypocrite.

Unions do create parasitic workers. The socialist dream that any loser or unproductive worker can rise in rank above better qualified workers with more pay and promotion through time.

Works very well for both moral and productivity, no? Then as they perpetually pressure their respective employers for higher wages and benefits through their union they guarantee to get their demands met or they hold the company & customers hostage through strikes.

As with the big three the wages go up to a disproportionate amount of their competitors and the company compensates their losses with cheaper materials and technology to lose their marketplace as innovators and leaders.

Let the BIG 3 go! Someone will pick up the slack, albeit Japanese or European manufactures. Quite possibly there will be new innovators and upstarts within the US to build new and improved vehicles from the ground up. There will be a fire sale in manufacturing parts and machines along with an abundant supply of non union labor who will be more than willing to work at the current rates. Just give them a few months of unemployment to think about it.

Hell it’s not like they are going to find work in the fields, or construction, or road repair - for those jobs are the one’s Americans won’t do and the illegal’s have those industries all sewed up. Remember?

"Unions are not parasitical because they provide a service"

I challenge that assessment. While the term 'parasitic' may be emotionally loaded, it isn't entirely inaccurate. The 'service' provided by unions is one workers are compelled to consume.

One can try to dress up a union as simply another service provider (like a bank, clothes retailer, real estate developer, etc.), but the compulsion of union membership quickly dispels this notion.

wait, ulianov/lberia - how do you know that unions are NOT 'enormously wealthy' - and you claim that they are not - if they don't post their assets? Well?

By assets, I don't mean their offices and computers, I mean all assets, which include those delightful pension funds and various benefit funds controlled by the union - all of these are legally union assets. Again, if the Ontario Teacher's Pension fund, aka their union, can afford to purchase something for over 50 billion, heck, I guess that means that they are a major corporation.

I repeat my claim - the unions drive up consumer costs - in everything, from cars to health care to government services ...Everything.

The Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla sell for the same price - and the Toyota, is far more economical than the Ford, with respect to gas. Resale for the Toyota is superior..and so on. Just google the two names and you'll find out yourself, lberia/ulianov.

No, don't blame the industrial corporation for the problems caused by the union corporation. Remember, the union corporation controls the workers - and that's an enormous clout that it has. For example, a city's transit union strike, which takes a third party, the riders, hostage, can force the industrial corporation (the city) to agree to disastrous union corporation terms.

Big deal- you say that over 95% of bargaining is concluded without a strike; that's because the union corporation has the option of a strike.

Unions are NOT highly regulated by government. Provide some of those regulations. What about strikes? Hmmm? They are economically disastrous when they take third parties hostage. As for strike pay - it's still pay, and the Unions dole it out. Remember, this money all came from the workers, but the unions certainly won't fund top pay for these strikers.

I'm not against unions investing their money. I'm against unions. Period. The individual worker can invest his money, taken by the parasitic union corporation - himself. He shouldn't have to give it to that parasitic corporation which then invests it - and DOESN'T RETURN the benefits of that investment to the worker. The individual worker would do FAR BETTER investing that money on his own.

And remember, the union parasites drive up the cost of production. Up and up - and that harms the worker as well.

No, I'm not lying. Your description of unions isnot factual. You haven't provided one fact. Nothing about how wealthy the unions are - and you claim that they aren't..yet you also claim that you don't know what their assets are..so you do you know about their financial state?

You claim that they are regulated by governments but don't outline what those regulations are.
You claim that strikes and strike threats are irrelevant - but ignore the costs of strikes. For example, a transit strike in Toronto can cost the economy 50 million a day. Neat. The United Steelworker's strike in the US - cost the economy billions.

The regulations don't prohibit the relentless search by unions for more blood (remember, they are parasites so they need new members all the time, both in new factories and to replace retireers)...
The regulations don't prohibit the outrageous demands of unions - which drive up the costs of the goods and services
The regulations don't prevent a unionized shop from transforming into an employee-centred enclave, ignoring its original focus on the customer and services..

So far, you haven't provided any proof. Not one word. Nothing. Try again. With facts not just your assertions.

ET/ Goebbels:

Hahaha! YOU are the one claiming that "unions are wealthy corporations" so prove it! Don't try to twist things around so that you can write anything you want and then others have to prove you wrong.

Unions do not control the workers...decisions, like accepting a contract or going on strike are voted on. All members are entitled to a vote, and it is a secret vote. You want proof that unions, strikes, etc. are highly regulated (BC, for example):
http://www.lrb.bc.ca/codeguide/chapter6.htm

Does your RSP belong to you or your fund manager? Stop lying about pensions because they are separate from any union assets. They belong to the employees/union members and are managed by trustees who are elected or appointed by the union. Pension plans are also highly regulated...look it up for yourself.

"Parasitic" implies that there is no benefit to the host, ie. the worker. This is wrong, because on average unionized workers make 20% more than non-unionized employees. Go to Statistics Canada for proof. ("Parasitic" is what the Nazis called the Jews in order to inflame hatred and Godwin not withstanding, you are doing the same thing.)

I've given you proof...stop your lies and do some research...unless, of course, you don't have a problem selling out your integrity for $$$ to the anti-union Coservative/NCC/Fraser Institute types.

Nice banter.

The real issue with this post is the UAW's decision to "bluff and go all-in" within a week of the deal. It shows how big their balls are. And they're big.

It will be interesting to see how Obama responds before March 31.

ET-"I repeat, GM can't lay off workers or close plants."

- General Motors has announced that it will close its Grand Rapids metal and die plant by the end of 2009
-GM to close its Janesville, Wisconsin-based SUV assembly plant by the end of 2008
-GM announces the same production end date at its Moraine, OH plant.
-General Motors will halt production at its Oshawa truck plant next year and probably won't reopen it again because of the collapse of pickup sales in the U.S., chairman Rick Wagoner said today.
-General Motors Corp. is closing four pickup and SUV assembly plants throughout North America, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner announced early Tuesday at a shareholders meeting in Wilmington, Del. (Dated June 3,2008)
-Chrysler said Monday that it will close a factory in Fenton, Mo., that makes minivans, and cut a shift at another plant that assembles pickup trucks.(Dated June 30,2008)
-The Norfolk Ford plant is on the list to be closed in 2008. The plant employs some 2,500 people and builds the top-selling F-150 truck.
-Daimler Trucks North America announced Tuesday that it was closing its Swan Island manufacturing facility and eliminating 900 jobs.
-Daimler's Sterling truck plant in St. Thomas, Ontario is adding itself to the growing list of auto plants closing their doors in Canada.

This is certainly not a complete listing of rather unfortunate facts that that ET is embarrassing oblivious to. If you actually employed facts and not simply zealotry, you might convince someone, other than yourself, that you know what you're talking about.

right, ulianov/lberia - that's what I said, that union assets aren't disclosed and it is difficult to find out exactly how much unions are worth - and then YOU, rather than providing us with the data that proved YOUR claim that unions are NOT that wealthy...simply copied my words and said that it's difficult to find out how much unions are worth. So, haha yourself. You copied my words rather than providing the PROOF that, as you claim, unions aren't that wealthy. So, how about proving your claim, hmmm?

Again, you copied my words to substantiate your claim that you didn't know how much they are worth.
BUT - you are the one who insisted that unions are not that wealthy. So, prove it.

You've said nothing, I note, about the Teacher's Union ability to put over 51 billion into a purchase.

No, you are wrong - the pension and other funds, if controlled by the union ARE assets. That's under Labor Union Law, by Osborne and Axelrod, 2005.

I repeat, unions are parasitic. There is no benefit to the workers. I've pointed that out numerous times - and your claim that union wages are higher is the height of economic ignorance. The wages are higher..and this cost is passed on to the consumer, so that the cost of living increases with a unionized workforce. Can't you figure that out???

Plus, as I've noted before, this transformation of an industry from product and service orientation to employee gratification means that profits don't go to better the product and service, because the profits are so reduced. Got that? So, GM can't do the research to develop better cars, because their profit is reduced by paying legacy costs to their retirees, by paying those higher wages and so on.

Again, unions are parasites. And stop with the insults; stick to the issues. And provide some proof:

Proof that unions are not wealthy;
Proof that the cost of unionization is not passed on to the consumer;
Proof that services provided by unionized industries are better than that provided by non-unionized industries. My claim is that the protection for incompetence provided by the unions means that unionized services are inefficient and indifferent;

Unions DO control the workers. During election times, these unions (eg teachers) phone their members up, to tell them where and what to do on the campaigns - and who to support.

Unions are parasitic.

Why should an unskilled person installing cup holder all day be paid $55 to $73 an hour???

That is ridiculous.

I would fire all the UAW worker and hire new workers, pay them half what the UAW workers are getting.

I'd have no problems finding people more than happy to be getting $26 to $37 an hour.

Then I could sell cars for less than the imports go for.

No need for bailouts.

The UAW people with their $33 MILLION resort deserve to be all fired, they are the new "monarchy", the new "oppressors".

Oh and to those who claim GM having financial trouble is proof positive capitalism is not working just consider this little fact I found in a Mark Steyn article,

GM has 96,000 employees but pays the medical bills of ONE MILLIOn PEOPLE.

That is not capitalism, that is SOCIALISM.

And it is failing.

ET/Goebbels, I posted this at 5:30:

"Proof! I challenge you to prove that the net worth of any large union is "enormous" relative to that of large corporations, or even relative to the top 100 wealthy individuals in Canada or the US."

You, however, have repeatedly stated that unions are "wealthy corporations" and then, when put on the spot, you make excuses such as "union assets aren't disclosed and it is difficult to find out exactly how much unions are worth," following which you twist things around asking me for proof. I never claimed that they were wealthy or not. Now stop squirming and start proving.

Osborne and Axelrod, eh? Show me where it says that pension funds are in the the same category as assets and can be treated the same way. Pension funds are completely separate and have nothing to do with day to day operations. They paid for by the employee and employer and are managed by trustees who have a fiduciary responsibility to plan members, not to the union or the union executive.

Your math is out to lunch if you claim that making 20% more has no benefit to the workers. The point is that union dues go toward making that 20% more for their members, so they are not parasitic, except in your partisan mind.

Get this into your head: the purpose of a union is to negotiate a contract with the employer defining wages, benefits and working conditions while ensuring that the employer fulfills their side of the contract. They obviously do not control workers because if they did, Canada would have all NDP governments.

Insults? I'm trying really hard not to insult you considering the kind of prevarications you present as fact. Keep repeating those NCC talking points, it just shows how far from being unbiased you are and puts your integrity as an academic into question.

Friend of USA, line workers make less that $30/hr.

Again, ulianov - you informed me that unions are not wealthy when I claimed that they were. You provided no proof. I then stated that it is difficult to ascertain with clarity, the financial assets of a union and asked you how you could prove that they were not wealthy. You simply repeated my sentence (difficult to ascertain)..and provided no proof for your original claim of unions not being wealthy.

My comments about the Teacher's Union were ignored by you.

Yes, Osborne and Axelrod is a good book about the problems of unions. For example, p76, where the union removed elected officials because those individuals were attempting to argue against union policies; other times, where the union imposed fines for 'dissident member activity' and 'disloyalty to the union'. How's that for democracy ..or is it authoritarian intimidation?

Again, the book, which is about 1,000 pages of detailed examination of labour laws, litigation and etc..notes on p. 188, Ch 2 that 'union benefit funds that are under the control of a union'..as differentiated from those administered by a trust - are union assets. I suggest you read the book.

You should also note the number of cases brought by members against the unions - and this doesn't refer to the cases which individuals didn't bring because they couldn't afford the legal costs to fight the unions.

Your repeated references to 'higher wages' to the worker totally and completely ignores that wages don't exist in isolation from the full economy. Those higher wages are passed on to the consumer, and this means that all costs of living go up, effectively invalidating the increased benefits of those wages.

Furthermore, if the full costs of wage and other benefits are not passed on to the consumer, this reduces the profit for the company. Of course, you probably think that profit simply goes into fancy dinners and cars. No, it has to be spent on research and innovation, upgrades of equipment - and because this wasn't done, Ford's cars are less valued than Honda's cars. Get it?

Again, unions are parasites; they serve no function in our modern world and indeed, deeply harm the market economy because they prevent the market from functioning and instead, transform industrial corporations into employee service centres.

By the way, you in one post contrasted fascism with socialism. Fascism IS a socialist system. Socialism, communism and fascism all operate the same way, with rights and authority located in the collective rather than the individual. The only difference between fascism and socialism/communism is the location of ultimate authority. Fascism locates it in the past and in a hereditary essentialism, while the other two locate it in the future and is a cultural or created, non-hereditary essentialism.

Cheers. As for NCC talking points - sorry, I don't read their stuff. Or the Fraser Institute. But, your logical error is to assert that IF one reads work from there, THEN it is wrong. Who says so? Their analysis could be right. You are making an error akin to saying IF it comes from X-country, THEN, it's excellently made. Texts like Osborne etc are my sources..and I can make up my own mind.

The UAW IS wealthy,

Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year.

Read the whole thing here

ET-"'union benefit funds that are under the control of a union'..as differentiated from those administered by a trust - are union assets. I suggest you read the book."

- Those financial instruments listed as assets on the CAW Balance Sheet will have offsetting pension liabilities, etc., which effectively reduce the asset carrying value. To only consider the wealth of any entity in terms of assets is asinine. This would not be a true reflection of wealth.

ET2-"Those higher wages are passed on to the consumer, and this means that all costs of living go up, effectively invalidating the increased benefits of those wages."

If that was strictly true then the union workers would not enjoy the rather elevated current standard of living that they do, as opposed to the historical level of industry compensation. Whether the cost of labour is completely reflected in the sale price of manufactured goods relates greatly to demand/market elasticity, not necessarily the effects of wage increases.

How can you insist on classifying an entity as parasitic when the "host" invites this relationship, the relationship exists voluntarily, and it is demonstrably beneficial to the "host". As well, these benefits extend beyond wages and benefits. I cannot take you seriously if you are suggesting that union environments do not insist that management is far more effective addressing discrimination, abuse, safety and the vagaries of incompetent management than employees without trained and dedicated union representation.

Your ideology does not serve you well in this argument.

ET/Goebbels:

"Again, ulianov - you informed me that unions are not wealthy when I claimed that they were."

I did not inform you of any such thing. Show me where I did. You are a liar.

"...But, if the Ontario Teacher's Union Pension Plan could buy BCE for 51.7 Billion, then, I guess they are doing OK in the top 100 wealthy individuals."

"My comments about the Teacher's Union were ignored by you."

No, they were not. I wrote that pension plans are not the same as assets. You throw in a red herring ("'union benefit funds that are under the control of a union'..as differentiated from those administered by a trust - are union assets"), without proving which category the Ontario Teachers fall into. Moreover, that text deals with US Labour laws, which aren't the same as Canadian laws. But it's not like you to try to confuse the issue, right?

"You should also note the number of cases brought by members against the unions - and this doesn't refer to the cases which individuals didn't bring because they couldn't afford the legal costs to fight the unions."

You go for smear tactics...perhaps you could name one organization on earth that doesn't have unsatisfied members? Perhaps if you stopped to think about it, you would realize that unions exist because workers are unsatisfied with their employers.

You complain about higher wages harming the economy. Well, with logic like that we should do away with wages and go back to slavery. And you wonder why I call you a fascist?

I am disappointed that you choose to present your opinions as facts and then to lie when challenged to prove your "facts" or come to conclusions that have no basis in reality. You turn what could have been an interesting debate into an exercise in futility.

Unions foster a sense of entitlement...period. Those that want to EARN a living on their own terms do not survive in a union environment. It stifles and degrades individuality and the pursuit of excellence. It forces the collective and upholds the rule of mediocrity. It peels its due off of its members paycheque to return nothing but heavy-handed union bosses to fearmonger and propogandize to its unwashed masses on the cruel corporate oppression. The kamikaze nature of these organizations prove that the safety, well-being and working environment of its members was lost decades ago as the purpose behind their existence. Those that can't see this inherent nature of the current incarnation of the union either have their entitlements riding on the success of these unions or have yet to realize history demonstrates the failure of communism and its derivatives.

No facts will be produced to concretize this statement of opinion. Please refrain from asking.