More striking

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

Of course not, and GM and the union see this, now you will see GM plants closing (Oshawa for example) and slashing in other areas. I am not saying Corps are not to blame either, but when they offer a fair deal and the union rejects accusing them of being a "union breaker" than the fault lies with the union, as this deal with the airlines has shown.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

GM management thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If GM management signed a deal that didn't represent the best deal for shareholders then the shareholders need to replace management.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

GM management thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If GM management signed a deal that didn't represent the best deal for shareholders then the shareholders need to replace management.

At the time, it was a good deal, market conditions change, and it turned into a bad deal.


http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/exhibits/sitdown.html

The first major strike by the UAW against GM, sit down strike

The major reasons cited are
-----------------
Auto factories were tough places to work during the early years of the industry. The pace of work was controlled by the ever-increasing speed of the assembly line and the foreman held the power to hire or fire workers at will. Many jobs were physically demanding, machines had few safety devices, and industrial accidents were common. On August 26, 1935, auto workers organized the UAW to bargain for better wages and working conditions.
------------------



These are why unions are good, to prevent conditons like these. Now they try ti milk every company for everything they are worth.

You are 100% correct, if the shareholders do not think the agreement was good, they management needs to be replaced. It is all about the bottom line, now just remember this when management moves jobs overseas to protect the bottom line because shareholders insits on it, due to the fact the unions would not bend in there demands and it is cheaper to do business overseas.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sounds peachy, Richard E, except for one thing- the subject at hand is NW airlines, a domestic carrier who only competes against other domestic carriers. It's not like they or their competitors can move their operations overseas, or that they have to compete directly with other state subsidized airlines in their market segment...

Many Airlines are out sourcing their maintenance overseas because it is much cheaper than paying American Workers.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

GM management thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If GM management signed a deal that didn't represent the best deal for shareholders then the shareholders need to replace management.

The problem with Airlines is they can't just go out and find replacement workers. for example, American Airlines in Tulsa has ~4K mechanics all of which have to have an A&P certification that takes two years to recieve. There isn't a huge pool of A&P sitting around looking for jobs, so if the AA union goes on strike, AA can not service their 737, M80, 757 and A300 flleets. At that point they really don't have much choice except to agree to whatever the union wants.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

GM management thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If GM management signed a deal that didn't represent the best deal for shareholders then the shareholders need to replace management.

The problem with Airlines is they can't just go out and find replacement workers. for example, American Airlines in Tulsa has ~4K mechanics all of which have to have an A&P certification that takes two years to recieve. There isn't a huge pool of A&P sitting around looking for jobs, so if the AA union goes on strike, AA can not service their 737, M80, 757 and A300 flleets. At that point they really don't have much choice except to agree to whatever the union wants.

Actually there are currently a glut of aircraft mechanice. Northwest had no probem finding replacement workers.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: zendari
That's what unions do; drive up the price of wages beyond their market value. The airlines are taking huge hits but unions keep asking for more and more.

Can you blame Walmart for taking every measure possible to prevent unions from forming?

Absolutely not; with the given history of unions almost every company should be doing so in the interest of maximizing profits.

Zendari..

What do you do for a living? I have a feeling I could have a Mexican worker do your job for a fraction of what you're getting paid.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: RichardE
The true value of labour is set by the companies, that is why you see more jobs going to India, China, Asian countries to produce there goods rather than pay for overpriced labour here. The unions keep fighting for every last dime, companies keep sending jobs overseas.

You can't possibly believe that crap. Companies send jobs over seas because it is drastically cheaper. It's cheaper because the poor laborers in those countries are willing to work for much less than workers here. Your example just shows that workers are the ones who define the value of labor, not the companies. Companies look to pay their workers as little as possible without the workers quitting. Just because someone is willing to work for cheap doesn't make their salary "fair", they may have no other option.

My main point as stated above, were unions were fine if they didn't step over the line where they strangle employers. Companies are regulated by minimum wage to the minimum amount they can pay employees. Unions do not face a maximum amount due to the society we live in (capitalism ect). If unions did not strangle employers with demands that make it expensive to do labour here do you think companies would leave? There is an expense in moving your entire operation to another country, as well the shipping costs incured to ship your product back ect. Companies must stay competitve in a global market or they will go bankrupt, Unions can either conform to these ideas and work witht the company, or watch as the company either goes bankrupt, or moves there operations somewhere else.

It is true that unions have abused their powers many times in the past, but they are also the only way for workers to get their voices heard by the heads of the companies. Yes, sometimes they may be bad, but they also help preserve the rights of the worker.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

GM management thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If GM management signed a deal that didn't represent the best deal for shareholders then the shareholders need to replace management.

The problem with Airlines is they can't just go out and find replacement workers. for example, American Airlines in Tulsa has ~4K mechanics all of which have to have an A&P certification that takes two years to recieve. There isn't a huge pool of A&P sitting around looking for jobs, so if the AA union goes on strike, AA can not service their 737, M80, 757 and A300 flleets. At that point they really don't have much choice except to agree to whatever the union wants.

Actually there are currently a glut of aircraft mechanice. Northwest had no probem finding replacement workers.

Now there is since a lot of the airlines started out sourcing maintanence and down sizing otherwise. Pre 9/11 there wasn't a surplus and unions were able to demand anything. Also a lot of the Northwest replacement workers had no experence on mass transport aircraft before starting at NW (at least that is what I read when this whole thing got started).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Malarkey, Zendari. Unions are very highly regulated- they've almost been regulated out of existence...

They run converse to the free market. It's not the government doing the regulating.

There is an assumption in your statement that the labor market is otherwise free. If you are an airplane mechanic and there is only one employer in town that hires airplane mechanics then the labor market is not free. The one employer calls the shots. A union helps balance the labor/employer relationship in the absence of a free market. Walmart will become unionized when the pool of alternative employers is depleted.

How many airports are in the US, or even North America? If they do not all belong to the same owner/CEO than the market is free. If you cannot find work somewhere, you move and try to find it somewhere else. No one owes you a living.

And no employer is owed labor at any particular wage. Unions help determine the market wage, much like speculators help determine the market price for a commodity.

What is wrong with an employer taking the best possible wage? To make the most money? Again, if you do not like it, no one is forcing you to work. If you do not agree with how any employers are managing there emplyees, start your own business. Again, it is a free labour market, Unions help to ensure that there members get as much of the profit as possible, as they are the workers. The problem with unions is when they pass that line and start cutting into money the company needs to survive (this includes cost for upgrades, R&D ect). Again, business are in business to make money, plain and simple, they are not there to make everyone feel good, they exist to provide a good/service for a profit (save not-for profit). If a worker does not like what an employer offers, he is free to look somewhere else for work. If Unions did not try and make companies bleed every dollar they have, they would have there place, but they put companies in postitions they would not be in (see GM/Ford, Other numerous companies) the situations they are in. Unions will either need to change there tactics to survive or you will see companies going out of business rather that pay what these unions demand.

Who defines that line? The way to find out what the best possible wage is for their members is for unions to push the limit. Somehow a type of moral verdict is passed upon unions for looking out for their members while employers get a free pass as they are "just trying to maximize profits". That GM and other companies agree to union demands indicates that meeting the demands must have been in the best interests of the shareholders. If not, then the shareholders need to hold management responsible for violating their fiduciary obligations.

Ask yourself this. Has it been in GMs best interest to accept union demands. RIght now GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, while non union car builders prospering. GM has about 25% more labor overhead per car than toyota does. You cant think this is good for GM or its shareholders.

GM management thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If GM management signed a deal that didn't represent the best deal for shareholders then the shareholders need to replace management.

The problem with Airlines is they can't just go out and find replacement workers. for example, American Airlines in Tulsa has ~4K mechanics all of which have to have an A&P certification that takes two years to recieve. There isn't a huge pool of A&P sitting around looking for jobs, so if the AA union goes on strike, AA can not service their 737, M80, 757 and A300 flleets. At that point they really don't have much choice except to agree to whatever the union wants.

Actually there are currently a glut of aircraft mechanice. Northwest had no probem finding replacement workers.

Now there is since a lot of the airlines started out sourcing maintanence and down sizing otherwise. Pre 9/11 there wasn't a surplus and unions were able to demand anything. Also a lot of the Northwest replacement workers had no experence on mass transport aircraft before starting at NW (at least that is what I read when this whole thing got started).

Aactually a large number of the replacements were actually laid off NW aircraft mechanics. Some work maybe outsourced as it does not make sense to do all the work at all location by NW employees, most of work is still being done by NW. Right now there is glut of aircraft mechanics.