3 ms·
This is a self-contradictory statement and the end of which you're blaming unions for something you don't provide evidence. Citation please.
by prolepunk 8y ago
This is a self-contradictory statement and the end of which you're blaming unions for something you don't provide evidence.
Citation please.
- eganist 8y agohttps://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27auto.html?mtrref=undefined https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27auto.html?m... https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/business/28auto.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/business/28auto.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15auto.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15auto.html Closest I can get you since all the journal articles are from conservative-leaning institutions with a vested interest against unionization. All three articles are about the new contracts UAW signed in 2007 as the auto industry was collapsing in the United States, all of which cite massive concessions back to the auto companies. Notably, Ford still got to fold 10 of their original 16 plants scheduled for closure, GM got to shift away massive healthcare obligations, and Chrysler managed to substantially reduce their employment guarantees. If you were a union interested in a happy balance between company and employee rather than just making your employees score every short-term dollar that they could, you wouldn't need to concede like this with one, let alone every, major United States-founded auto maker. It's worth noting that GM actually got the biggest haul up front since they got the opportunity to negotiate first.