3 ms·
Every contract has two sides, so I don't see why the UAW should be singled out for blame here. The management must have believed that their contract with the a
by sethg 18y ago
Every contract has two sides, so I don't see why the UAW should be singled out for blame here. The management must have believed that their contract with the auto workers would still leave them enough cash to make a profit--otherwise they never would have signed the contract in the first place!
- ars 18y agoNo, I'm quite sure they signed under duress - it was sign or a strike. Usually contracts made under duress are invalid, but not when it's a union. What makes it worse is that even the employees were under duress - even if they wanted to work, and were not interested in a strike, they couldn't.
- sethg 18y agoThe threat of a strike is not duress. "Accept these terms or we won't work for you" is not that different from "accept these terms or we won't sell you steel". Companies in other unionized industries have pushed unions to accept significant concessions. If the Big Three management had really believed that accepting the UAW's last offer was going to destroy their business, then they were irresponsible not to endure a strike in order to break the union.