My stand has always been that unions are bringing our economy down. Highly
over paid and underworked. I've been in all sorts of manufacturing
facilities throughout southern Ontario and as soon as you walk in the door
you can tell if it's unionized or not.

Employees are not rewarded for achievement, they are rewarded for how long
they've been f***ing the dog. "No need for me to work my a.s off and be
productive, Jimmy does nothing and gets paid the same as me."

In a non-union shop, when your job is done, you find something to do.
Whether it be sweep the floor or help someone else, not take a nap in the
lunch room! The "not my job" mentality is getting companies no where.

No need for them.

Steve

I'd say both.  GM (as well as Ford and Chrysler) found it very easy to give
the workers more rather than contend with a strike.  That was fairly easy
when the sales increased every year and productivity went up along with it.
Times have changed.  No company today can afford the contracts of three
decades ago.  The phone companies have changed, IBM has changed banks and
insurance companies have changed.

In the 1960's many mechanics had no idea what a metric wrench was and did
and could not work on imported cars.  Even the mass produced Volkswagen was
a niche market car in the early years.  I'm all for good pay but if the auto
makers want to compete, the unions and companies have to get serious and
help save each other.

That is a part of the problem, and probably the most acute part.

But is certainly isn't the only part.

Management let the unions get them by the cojones.
Management is responsible for the crappy reputation GM and others have for
producing a less than top quality product, and then not backing it up.

Certainly the unions have done a lot of damage historically. Right now,
though, I think GM management is killing itself. The unions could probably
build a car for a reasonable price at reasonable quality, but nobody will
pay for them what they cost.  In other words, Toyotas built here in the US
can make money, while GM cars can't.  The problem is lack of pricing power.
You know what? That's caused by the product itself.

Why is that? This may not be the #1 reason, but it's interesting:  There are
a lot of people who wouldn't even look at a U.S. made car at all. They've
sworn an oath against the U.S. auto makers.  If the unions disbanded
tomorrow, this would not change at all. It would make no difference.  Is
this built-up effects of the union, or GM management? Both probably. The
reason people will tell you they woudln't consider a US car at all are
mainly:
1. Crappy products (they must be guilty of this)
2. Previous bad service experience (they're even more guilty of this)

So I think GM management and the union were both involved in producing
crappy cars for many decades. Plus, what everybody forgets, the built-up
sins of the dealer network.  Those were some bad sins.  Bad people
experiences were caused by the GM dealer network.  A lot of people don't
distinguish between local thugs and the multinational corporation. They get
in USENET and post stuff like "I can't believe GM did this to me" and blah
blah blah.

Toyota dealers may be just as crooked, but they haven't had as much time to
make enemies here in the U.S.