Im Sick of and Im Fed Up of Unions Being Blamed For Auto Bailout Breakdown!!!!

here is a link about the memo called "Action Alert-Auto bailout"

that tells republicans to deny the bailout as a first blow in defeating unionized labor.

crooksandliars.com...

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Let's be clear on what a union is. Unions are businesses that make profit by increasing the size of its membership. Unions have a very powerful voice in government (particularly with Democrats in the states, liberals and NDP in Canada). They spend a huge amount of money to sway votes in their favor. They also make huge contributions come election time to the people that sing their song.

Like I said the income for a union comes from members of that union. So for their business to survive they have to make promises and sell a product that people are willing to buy. How do they do this? They give the promise of higher wages, job security, benefits, etc. Does any of these things come out of the unions pocket? No, so why should they care where the money comes from as long as they as a union can survive. Afterall, business has only two objectives; profit and self preservation.

So when a union is threatened with losing its profits (ie members) because their jobs become obsolete or the company is trying to cut wages, benefits, etc, they will do whatever it takes to keep their profits coming in. They have a very powerful tool, the ability to shutdown production.

What the end result is that businesses cannot function properly because their hands are tied from doing things like replacing employees with machines that can do the job far more efficiently and cheaply. They also force the price of a product upwards as they must pay these benefits and bloated wages. If the company wants to keep the price of their product down, they have to use cheaper materials. Now the product suffers, the company suffers because they are no longer competitive with companies that are free to fire obsolete jobs, to use better materials, to use the lastest state of the art technology, all in the name of job security.

Tell me, if I start a business, should I not get to decide what a worker makes? Should I not be allowed to hire or fire whom I please without having to deal with a third party bureaucracy? Unions are the truly greedy and their shortsightedness has brought down many industries because of their so called "good intentions".

But like they say good intentions pave the road to hell.

BIG WOW!!

You sound like someone who wouldn't mind putting children to work for you at 50 cents a day.

That's right. UNIONS were the driving factor that ENDED child labor. UNIONS were the driving factor that ended sweat shops. UNIONS were the driving factor that brought you weekends - yes, you know, a WEEKEND....

Unions made work force diversity mandatory, enabled handicapped people to find employment, and ensure that YOU, as a person ambitious for profit, will compensate the people who volunteer to do your work for you FAIR WAGE, with HEALTH BENEFITS for the damage that work will do to them and their families physically, and emotionally, and a PENSION PLAN that will reward them at the end of their productive life with continued survivability when they cannot rigorously produce what they did during their youth.

Sure, you may think yourself a benevolent person that would wish to do good for those that support your profits. But as greed sets in, or costs rise in unexplained or unpredictable ways, HISTORY has PROVEN that you, as a business owner, will fail your people before you fail your profits.

That's why unions were created, to give leverage to the people. Sure, as with everything on this planet, unions are not a perfect solution. The constance of human GOOD WILL would prove to be better. However, given the nature of humanity, it seems to continuously fail when the time becomes ripe for it not to.

I'm sorry, but as a person, to another person, I cannot trust you to do good by me without a written agreement, nor regulation to enforce it.

It may be ok to be raised on the farm, but it's not ok to be the farm..

reply to post by Mr Gone


GM (only) has more retires then all those companies have workers and retires put together.


not part of the reply:

read the link i posted above. its working.

stop blaming the union!!! union wages AND benefits only make up 10% of the cost to run an auto company/w a union.

and again i MUST state. UNION WORKERS PAY TAXES ALSO!!!. for this bailout AND the 700 billion bailout given to the BANKERS.

can you not see that this is all taking ALL the wealth and putting it into the 4% of the world that owns 94% of the money, and putting the debt back into the 6% rest of the world? the 6% rest of the world is YOU and ME(a union worker)

just wanted to add that this last statmenet does show that i do not think that the big 3 deserve this money for THIER bad business decisions.i do want this to go through so that i can keep my job. but even if we changed the 10% spent on labor to 6% will not help or save the companies.
[edit on 12/12/2008 by keeff]

[edit on 12/12/2008 by keeff]

[edit on 12/12/2008 by keeff]

reply to post by DarkspARCS

Long, long ago, the unions did help the workers get reasonable benefits. We've all studied that in US history in high schools.

Those days are long gone. If GM and Ford go out of business, you need to ask your union leaders to return to you union members the $400 million that they contributed to Democrats in this last election.

See where that gets you.

They are corrupt, and this also goes back to American History. Unions don't create anything, they only take from their members. This last go-around, they were pressing for no more secret ballots, wanting to ride roughshod over other workers who didn't want to participate.

What happened to all your Democrat chums you voted in? It right now looks like any help whatsoever will come from a Republican President.

A business should determine what it can afford and what it can't. I'll tell you what GM and Ford did. They caved into UAW demands far too many times. They fed the crocodile hoping it would eat them last. Wal-Mart was stronger than that. They have closed down brand new stores within two weeks of a union moving in.

The meat cutters formed a union? Not a problem for Wal-Mart. They immediately began to purchase non-union pre-packaged meats.

Now GM/Ford and the UAW are going down the river, belly up.

What goes around, comes around.


[edit on 12-12-2008 by dooper]

reply to post by DarkspARCS

Hey, Dark, get serious. Production workers should have intellectual property rights on the cars they produce?

This mentality is just exactly where the problem arises. When a professor who worked for the University of Florida developed an energy drink that rapidly replenished electolytes, hydration, sodium and potassium in the body for UF athletes, guess who owned the rights? Nope. Not the professor. His employer.

This is customary in all industries, in all scientific organizations. If you develop something on company time, the company owns the rights to what you develop.

Companies own the assets. Not the employees. Unions are run by thugs who threaten to shut a business down if they don't meet the demands of the unions. What a load of crap!

Talk about class warfare. Is baloney like this what your union leaders tell you guys?

And for your information 10% is a lot of money on big ticket items. Many large companies won't even net a 10% profit on the average. I think BIG OIL nets around 6%.

Look. The UAW rode their horses into the ground. That's all. They killed the golden goose that was laying all their eggs. It's dead. It's over. And I hope all the other suppliers and manufacturers that relied on GM and Ford will place the blame square where it belongs - the UAW.

Maybe those former UAW leaders can now take up needlepoint or bingo. They may actually have to go out themselves and get real jobs.

Nah.

Well they are paid $28 an hour to do 1/4 of the labor in most jobs. I have seen it. They want something for nothing. Not all are like this but most are.
In non union facilites the folks do much more for their $40 an hour. Unions have failed the workers they were to protect.

I say Chapter 11 for GM (all I have ever owned, but no more unless they change.)

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Yes, my numbers posted are FACTS. Your post is from a BLOG, which is ONE PERSON'S OPINION.

In the Decision 2008 forum, blogs were not allowed as references, and for good reason. They are just one person's opinion. You are basing your post on a blog of ONE person. Anyone can create a blog.

MY FIGURES were all from reputable, independent webistes that verify what they post.

Please stick to the FACTS, not some blogger's opinion.

Try to subdue your immense ignorance and read again:

The New York Times debunks the claim that the Big Three auto workers earn $73 an hour. That number came from the car companies themselves during union negotiations, writes David Leonhardt.

To the Big Three’s defenders, meanwhile, the number has become proof positive that autoworkers are being unfairly blamed for Detroit’s decline. “We’ve heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour,” Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said last week. “It’s a total lie. I think some people have perpetrated that deliberately, in a calculated way, to mislead the American people about what we’re doing here.”

www.nytimes.com...

The New York Times is not a blog and Senator Casey is a real person who can figure stuff that you can't. Why don't you stick with common sense for a change?

Originally posted by DarkspARCS

BIG WOW!!

You sound like someone who wouldn't mind putting children to work for you at 50 cents a day.

That's right. UNIONS were the driving factor that ENDED child labor. UNIONS were the driving factor that ended sweat shops.

Ummm...no I'm sorry. What ended "sweat shops" in North America were NEW JOBS AND TECHNOLOGY. Todays equivalent to lines of workers with sewing machines is the cubicle doing something like data entry.

As far as child labor goes, I was happy doing jobs when I was kid. I helped dig graves, helped maintain the lawn at a church, do maintenance on the equipment and when I was thirteen I worked at a lumber yard putting together orders, loading trucks etc. I was more than happy to do it. Why? BECAUSE I MADE MONEY. I could choose what I wanted to do with that money that I otherwise wouldn't have had. My family was dirt poor. My parents could not afford to buy their eight kids clothing, food, and pay all their bills. If I wanted something I had to work for it.

Now consider the conditions that my father had when he was young. In Mexico, he slaved from 4 a.m. to 12 p.m. on the family farm. Today we would consider those conditions appalling. But for my father, if he wanted to eat, or just save money for future endeavours he had to work for it. The same story goes for millions of people whose forefathers had to, from a very young age, work in the mine, work in a textile factory, work in a smelting plant, etc if they wanted to have a better life for themselves and their family.

UNIONS were the driving factor that brought you weekends - yes, you know, a WEEKEND....

Shouldn't I get to decide if I want to work 60 70 80 hours a week because I want more money? These days it's hardly worth it because of the amount of tax I have to pay on that overtime (In Canada). Who can we thank for those penalties? Unions. Businesses also get punished severely for "overworking their employees." Shouldn't I get to decide if I want to work at a place that asks me to work 7 days a week?

Unions made work force diversity mandatory,

You consider positive racism a good thing? If I was a business, shouldn't I have the right to choose employees whos SKILLS would benefit my company and not the the color of their skin?

enabled handicapped people to find employment,

Unions are responsible for this? Really? Listen "handicapped" is a very broad label. Everyone has something to offer that is worth something to somebody else, including their time. Again I would argue that technology like the internet is the great equalizer for people who are autistic or quadripilegic because they can still input information into a computer. That ability is worth alot of money these days. How do you know if some of the members on ATS are autistic? Would you treat them differently if you found out? How many "handicapped" people have you actually met that wanted to be treated differently than anyone else?

and ensure that YOU, as a person ambitious for profit, will compensate the people who volunteer to do your work for you FAIR WAGE,

Shouldn't I get to decide what is a fair wage? I mean if nobody is willing to get paid my initial amount that would mean I would have to raise the wage of that particular job if I want to have employees. In that way, the market decides what the wages are and not some bureaucrat who has one hand in your pocket.

with HEALTH BENEFITS for the damage that work will do to them and their families physically, and emotionally

If you don't like what I have to offer, then don't work for me. If nobody wants to work for me, then yes I have to put up benefits as a way to attract employees. Plus as an employee I would much rather have a higher wage to spend on my own health rather than reduced wages on something I will never use.

or and a PENSION PLAN that will reward them at the end of their productive life with continued survivability when they cannot rigorously produce what they did during their youth.

Since when is it a company's responsibility to take care of me when I get old? Shouldn't I be able to take care of myself and spend and invest my money my way? BTW you can make far more money investing your own money than alot of pension programs.

Another question for you. Why should my health care and/or my pension be tied to my job? What if I wanna quit and get a better job? I can save alot more money if they do not garnish my wages and spend it on things I want or need.

Sure, you may think yourself a benevolent person that would wish to do good for those that support your profits. But as greed sets in, or costs rise in unexplained or unpredictable ways, HISTORY has PROVEN that you, as a business owner, will fail your people before you fail your profits.

Since when is it my responsibility for my employees well being? My motives are for profits and shipping my product. The employees that I need to make these products will benefit when I as a company benefit. Also when I make a product better cheaper, etc.. consumers benefit because of it.

That's why unions were created, to give leverage to the people. Sure, as with everything on this planet, unions are not a perfect solution. The constance of human GOOD WILL would prove to be better. However, given the nature of humanity, it seems to continuously fail when the time becomes ripe for it not to.

Unions were created as a business like any other with their own self interests. Like any other business they are looking for profit. The only way they profit is with new members and legislation that gives them more power to take even more from those "dastardly" companies. Now they use lines like "we are for the workers etc" and rewrite history to gain new members or reinforce support for their business but their good intentions pave the road to hell for everybody.

I'm sorry, but as a person, to another person, I cannot trust you to do good by me without a written agreement, nor regulation to enforce it.

Look I agree here. I am merely saying that as a business decision, letting unions in is like shooting yourself in the foot. Their demands always increase never decrease. Unions also have yet to figure anything times zero equals zero. UAW will find that out soon.



[edit on 13-12-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

reply to post by dooper


Greetings dooper. On a related thread HERE, ATS Moderator Icarus Rising mentioned an interesting thing to another contender to this issue, not unlike yourself:

Sen. Dodd is on CNBC live right now saying you are wrong, jsobecky. He says the auto unions had agreed to compatability and comparibility in wages and benefits as part of the deal, but the GOP still wouldn't vote for the bridge loan. Then the White House starts saying they will use TARP funds to bail out the big three. Its a dog and pony show.

Imo, the GOP is using this crisis to break the UAW, to further erode the voice and standard of living of workers in this country, and you are down with them. There is an underlying agenda at work here, and you are engaged in furthering it.

I'll have to state that his comment directly agrees with what you are trying to accomplish here.

While I've stated that Unions are not a perfect solution, they give the worker a guarantee of a fair compensation level that a person with an agenda for profit will not.

Unions FORCE folks like yourself to be fair to those that support you, and while this country is still free and there are those that will listen to the propaganda you spread about unions for a 'job', outsources non union and even anti union organizations will still take advantage of weak minded people who feel that's what they deserve... a gracious handout from you for their sweat and their blood.

What's interesting to note here is that the consessions given to those who work in the non union sector...

HAVE ALL BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE IT WAS HEDGED AGAINST UNION BENEFITS...

get rid of the union, and lets see where those benefits will go then.

Originally posted by dooper

Long, long ago, the unions did help the workers get reasonable benefits. We've all studied that in US history in high schools.

Those days are long gone. If GM and Ford go out of business, you need to ask your union leaders to return to you union members the $400 million that they contributed to Democrats in this last election.

See where that gets you.

They are corrupt, and this also goes back to American History. Unions don't create anything, they only take from their members. This last go-around, they were pressing for no more secret ballots, wanting to ride roughshod over other workers who didn't want to participate.

What happened to all your Democrat chums you voted in? It right now looks like any help whatsoever will come from a Republican President.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by dooper]

=)

First. allow me to state my political focus is neither Democratic nor Republican. It was a Democrat who passed NAFTA, after all. My vote was for Ron Paul, and I am a Libertarian, since it is my understanding that America's political referendum consists of the elite and those that aren't. the haves, and the have nots.

A class of Americans exists - mostly UNIONIZED - that stands in their way of total domination called the middle class. Keep the people poor and they won't have the financial opportunity to contend against well supported opposition, even suppression, as we are seeing move to a higher level of existance here.

I already know that unions are corrupt, I never said they weren't. I am not however, I can guarantee you that. And what's more, I pay my taxes, from well earned union wages that place me at a leverageable position to politically be an active member against the loss of Freedom.

We, the middle class, are losing that battle, and agendas like yours are helping to force this thrust of loss into high gear.

What's better, supporting the people that support you FAIRLY, or facing the cold hard fact of a gun put in your face from an impoverished person who you exploited?

OK, I'll get real serious... reality will come soon to a neighborhood near you! It's not the rich man who is desperate. A mother with children she can't feed is. A Father who sees this won't hesitate, and then what?

CRIME, DEATH, and DESTRUCTION - is that what you want? Kinda hard to spend all those millions you profited from, if your dead!

[edit on 13-12-2008 by DarkspARCS]

any one who supported and voted for Bush last 8 years deserved to be paid no more than $1 per hour. because you know bush outsoursed most of the jobs to china and india. this is how much they make over there. big business don't care who makes their product as long as it brings them bigger profits. you know that it is coming . besides that chinese workers are happy to work for $1 per hour.

reply to post by DarkspARCS

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
reply to post by dooper

 

Greetings dooper. On a related thread HERE, ATS Moderator Icarus Rising mentioned an interesting thing to another contender to this issue, not unlike yourself:

Sen. Dodd is on CNBC live right now saying you are wrong, jsobecky. He says the auto unions had agreed to compatability and comparibility in wages and benefits as part of the deal, but the GOP still wouldn't vote for the bridge loan. Then the White House starts saying they will use TARP funds to bail out the big three. Its a dog and pony show.

Imo, the GOP is using this crisis to break the UAW, to further erode the voice and standard of living of workers in this country, and you are down with them. There is an underlying agenda at work here, and you are engaged in furthering it.

May I suggest that in the interest of fairness you also post my OP and responses to "ATS Moderator Icarus Rising" (does the fact that he is a mod make him more credible?).

The unions flatly refused to renegotiate UNTIL 2011.

After a negotiating marathon dragged into the night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, pulled the plug on efforts to tweak the bailout deal brokered by Democrats and the White House but opposed by Republicans.

The talks broke off when the United Auto Workers refused Republican demands that the union set "a date certain" by which its members would have a lower pay scale, one comparable to such manufacturers as Nissan and Volkswagen.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Edit: Btw, Icarus Rising is not an ATS Moderator. I had to double check that one.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by jsobecky]

The companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. Why? Because they can not produce a product at a price they can make a profit. If they go bankrupt, they get torn apart, the legacy costs go out the window. Too save them, everyone has to concede something. Only UAW has not.

The executive salaries are a red herring to change the subject. They are a tiny, tiny part of the expenses. GM is in real doo doo. Their legacy costs are more than the costs of current workers. The workers get $68 an hour in wages and benefits. You have to be honest and look at real costs and the benefits are obscene.

This is not about middle class. It is about people who are earning far more than their skill level justifies and asking others who work for far less and get far less benefits to pay up and bail them out of a mess their union is partially to blame for. It is about the fact that because of this nobody could afford the cars being built unless the car companies loose money. When a company makes no profits it is dead, period end of subject. The workers get nothing because their is nothing.

Who bails out the people who's money is being taken to bail out the auto industry? The Unions People sure won't be buying the cars if they charge enough to survive.

I think America is about fairness and Unions are about getting themselves paid more than everyone else unfairly and using what amounts to a protection racket to hold the companies hostage. It is simple. The more they get paid, the less others get paid. If everyone gets paid too much the whole works collapses. Do the math.

In a few weeks, GM will be worth less than nothing. It will be interesting to see how blood is gotten from that turnip. The scent of Chapter 11 is in the air.

reply to post by mybigunit


No we shouldn't blame unions for the auto makers failure. But we should blame them for having all our jobs here in the U.S. going to India, China, Mexico and Canada. I'm sorry but people in most unions are just outright overpaid. When your doing a remedial job and making 60k a year, things become unbalanced. Back in the 70s where I worked we had union strikes, the company agree to pay what they wanted, then 3 years later moved the entire section to Mexico and put everyone on the street.

The real culprit here is quality. No one wants American cars because of their incredible track record for being crap compared to foreign cars. They have done this to themselves and no bailout of any proportions will change it. I think they should take the bailout money to give to each employee and help bridge them to their next job.

reply to post by forshow


That is just the thing. We have to pay for EVERYTHING.

Our healthcare runs us about 1000-1200 a month. It is killing us.

We have to pay for school. So even if an American is smart enought to be a CEO or engineer, if they can't afford college, they are out.

you know looking at this issue. People keep saying that unions are the problem. I don't think so. I think unions are the solution to the american worker. Right now you have the big 3 unionized shops, that require them to pay out alot of money for the union. On the other hand, you have the international car companies based in the south that are non-union, making significantly less, and therefore able to produce a car cheaper.

Instead of making the big 3 force concesstions on its workers, How about forcing all other car manufacturers in the U.S. to unionize, and be paid a standard pay. In doing so, you equal the playing field, instead of Honda, Toyota, etc being able to pay 18 an hr, vs a union shop 28. They would be forced to pay the same amount.

This in turn would increase the middle class, and thus return more money to them.

Yes the non-unionized price of the cars would go up, but they would only go up to the cost of what the big 3 cost. Additionally, in order to protect the NEW unionized workforce, implement tariffs on all cars and trucks imported into the U.S. say, taking on $7,500 per car. This money would in turn be put into a fund, to assist the Unions in paying benefits for retirees.

In a nut shell you bolster the car manufacturers, protect the industry, and have a means to offset the cost of the retirees that hurt the union costs.

Just my opnion anyway..


Cheers,

Camain

reply to post by stander

Here is the link you posted that I responded to:

blogs.moneycentral.msn.com...

IT IS A BLOG! You posted the OPINION of a person named Kim Peterson.

Do auto workers really earn $73 an hour?
Posted Dec 11 2008, 06:56 AM by Kim Peterson
Rating: [Poor] [Poor] [Fair] [Fair] [Average] [Average] [Good] [Good] [Excellent] [Excellent]
Filed under: Ford, Honda, Toyota, GM, Kim Peterson

The New York Times debunks the claim that the Big Three auto workers earn $73 an hour. That number came from the car companies themselves during union negotiations, writes David Leonhardt.

But it isn't completely accurate. Yes, the companies do spend about $73 for every hour of unionized work, Leonhardt writes. Not all of that goes to the worker's pocket.

If you wanted to source the NY Times, you SHOULD HAVE LISTED THAT LINK. Just because a blogger says that a reputable source said something, does not make it true. That is WHY ATS has standards. All you need to do is follow the standards.
I won't stoop to your level and call you names.
There is no need for name calling. You are quite rude.

Originally posted by camain
you know looking at this issue. People keep saying that unions are the problem. I don't think so. I think unions are the solution to the american worker.

Solution to what exactly?

Right now you have the big 3 unionized shops, that require them to pay out alot of money for the union. On the other hand, you have the international car companies based in the south that are non-union, making significantly less, and therefore able to produce a car cheaper.

Do Toyota employees consider themselves downtrodden or underpaid?

Instead of making the big 3 force concesstions on its workers, How about forcing all other car manufacturers in the U.S. to unionize, and be paid a standard pay. In doing so, you equal the playing field, instead of Honda, Toyota, etc being able to pay 18 an hr, vs a union shop 28. They would be forced to pay the same amount.

So if I open a burger king, I should be forced to pay a burger flipper $70,000 a year? Again do these non union workers consider themselves underpaid?

This in turn would increase the middle class, and thus return more money to them.

This would force them to shut down in North America and go elsewhere because they would no longer be able to make a profit. How would you like to pay $40,000 dollars for a Honda Fit?

Yes the non-unionized price of the cars would go up, but they would only go up to the cost of what the big 3 cost.

I'd hate to break this to you but GM hasn't made any money in North America for a long time.

Additionally, in order to protect the NEW unionized workforce, implement tariffs on all cars and trucks imported into the U.S. say, taking on $7,500 per car. This money would in turn be put into a fund, to assist the Unions in paying benefits for retirees.

So you want less choice in vehicles you can buy? You want to pay alot more for vehicles that you are allowed to buy?

In a nut shell you bolster the car manufacturers, protect the industry, and have a means to offset the cost of the retirees that hurt the union costs.

Exactly how would this bolster car manufacturers? Less people would be able to afford these new high priced cars or nobody would buy them because they would have to use cheaper materials to try and turn a profit. Kind of like GM right now. No customers, no money.

Just my opnion anyway..

You make it sound like anyone who isn't working for a union is somehow downtrodden and can barely scrape by. Quite the contrary. Companies without unions are alot more flexible because they don't have deal with bureaucracy. Companies without unions are allowed to do what they do best, make a product that people want and make a profit. When a company profits, their employees and customers profit.

I'd venture a guess that I am one of the very few people within this site that routinely hires union workers and pay prevailing wages. I have no problem at all paying a union shop $80 to $105 an hour for skilled workers performing their craft. The pay on the check is from $30ish to $43ish per hour depending on the trade. It's the benefits and shop overhead that will just over double the cost per employee with the remainder going to the shop. The shop owner doesn't make much per hour per employee, but it adds up.

I do have a problem paying this much money to apprentice labor. I get deep discounts for taking the apprentices in for work. I consider the UAW workers, as a group, to be unskilled labor. They do have skilled labor, and only these people should be receiving the highest wages. Here lays the problem. The UAW considers the lug nut guy to be just as skilled as the head mechanic overseeing the robot welders. They get the same pay, but the skill level between them is astounding.

The system of building trades works because I bid on the job and there is a budget that has to be followed. If I underbid a job, I have to bail myself out. I have to accept the loss and move on to the next job. I also have to bid against other companies to do the same work.

This is kind of like making and selling cars. You have to be competitive and make money. Otherwise you go out of business. Why do the auto workers feel they deserve a job at the pay they receive? This is more than a contract issue, it is a mind set that they have from years of being grossly overpaid, IMHO. The auto industry set bad examples years ago by caving into union demands. Now, everything has came home to roost.

The auto workers should be very upset with their past leadership that gave them these over priced benefits and pay packages. It's not the companies fault.

Should the auto industries get a bailout. HELL NO! No one gives a damn when I'm underbid or another company gets the contract for a new building. But then, that's business and I understand that. The UAW doesn't understand this. They have priced themselves out of the market and it shows.

Thank God there are folks who understand the problem caused by the UAW. They truly have sucked the financial life out of their golden goose.

I'm a small business, and there are times that business is good, and we all do well. There are times when things are tough, and we all suffer.

In times of a slower market, we have to drop our prices to get work. During these times, we're just glad to get what we can. We all bite the bullet. The UAW doesn't know about hard times. But they're going to get a real education very, very soon.

If I offer a job that pays $20 per hour and someone takes it, I don't expect to hear them bitch about what I make. If I hire someone to do a job for $20 per hour, I didn't force them to take that job. That's what the job is worth, that's what is paid, and that's it. Take it or leave it.

Now if someone threatened to shut me down unless I paid $40 per hour, pluse benefits that cost me another $20 per hour, then guess what? I'll just delete the job!

Union wages also contribute greatly to the unemployment. Higher and higher minimum wages mean I will have to eliminate a number of lower paying positions. The people who were working those positions were happy with what they were being paid, and it is those lower income, unskilled workers who suffer when the cost of labor goes up.

It's business. That's the part the UAW and their ilk haven't yet comprehended. Business is competitive, and if you can't compete, you all lose your jobs.

Congratulations UAW. You are no longer competitive, and you will now lose your jobs.

If you still have problems understanding this, go to your nearest college or university and take Economics 101. There's MACRO economics, and there's MICRO economics. Learn.

Then the next time someone blows you some smoke on what's "right" or even use the word, "fair," you'll know that they have no idea what they're talking about.