Letting the Auto Makers fall.

[punked]

Unions have a long standing practice of demanding workplace rules that force employers to hire more people than they really need to do the job. Whether they had 800,000 or 400,000 union workers in 1985 that does not change the fact that they had too many people that they could not easily fire and those people now expect to be supported by the pension funds today.

Toyota and the other Japanese companies won't face those kinds of problems because they are not forced to hire workers they don't need because of union rules.

The compare the two I think you find them similar.

[ironstone]

This has been a long time in the making,spanning decades.They never took the imports seriously in the beginning.Quality control has been an issue,a big problem for them over many years.I don't think the management has been making the best decisions,and they seemed to be afraid to make tough decisions.The CAW and UAW have been milking the car companies for all they are worth and then some.True,the unions have made some concessions,but not nearly enough to alleviate the situation.

It seems to me there is too much capacity for the size of the market as well.And if governments(we the taxpayers) bail out the North American car companies,surely we must bail out EVERYONE.I say bite the bullet and let them fail if they can't get their act together.We'll survive.

[madmax]

Unions are the reason why there are so many pensioners.

You mean only the salaried staff should receive a pension, or have one offered to them?

There was a time when most companies offered pensions, union or not, those days are behind us as 40% of new enterprises don't offer pensions but they do offer shit wages.

Pensions are a good thing...

[madmax]

They are only a cost of doing business when the contributions are not sufficient to cover the liabilities. This happens when unions insist on ever increasing wage and benefits packages even when the company is in decline.

You must live in a different world.

Companies could be making significant monies as little as two years ago, and today are closing up. Some with underfunded pensions, only because they failed to contribute their share, as they were given pension holidays. Essentially a reign check.

You'd think that only Union Shops are closing the way you speak, or only union shops have a pension plan.

I am about to watch a Toyota owned operation with no union, declare itself bankrupt. Should happen before the year is done.

Without orders, the profits of the past become meaningless, and they are not asking their workforce to take pay and pension cuts, because it will make no difference.

[madmax]

Without unions GM would have never had 800,000 employees in 1985 and would not have same pension issues today.

..... automotive and office operations in the 80s.

1) Computers were not abundant or very effective in management operations. The Same numbers of White Collar workers were required until the late 80s when major restructuring occurred.

2) Toyota was the newest Automanufacturer in Ontario in 1988. They had no greater access to robotic technology and newer processes then did GM or anyone else. The original operation in the 80s at Toyota was little different in technology then GM. It was Automation that drove the reduction in manpower, just as it always has, as we continue to deskill and downgrade the workforce.

3) The only major difference in Toyota was its manufacturing processes, however the size of the workforce was still quite significant.

4) Most operations that would have shed hundreds of thousands of employees and become more automated become more productive per employee.

5) It is absurd to suggest that GM or any other company is "Bankrupt" because of a pension plan that they have failed to pay into.

[madmax]

Unions are set up to do the best for their members. They behave in a predictable fashion. The only time they get out of line is when employers are dumb, lazy and cowardly. The auto companies were all three, along with being short-sighted in terms of financial acumen, and fossilized in terms of adapting to different times.

If this were China, the top two or three layers of management in all the auto makers would be lined up and shot.

OUCH!!!

I am agreeing with Argus today.

[tango]

Economically, wage cuts are irrelevant to the future of Chrysler and any other auto maker. Whether these companies live or die depends on bondholders, on government, and - most importantly - on consumers. Direct labour accounts for 7 per cent of total auto costs: less than capital, less than materials, less than dealer margins. Cutting that to 6 per cent won't sell a single car or truck.

Indeed, the demand flies completely in the face of Fiat's own successful restructuring. Fiat went from basket case in 2004 to success story by 2007. Was that because of wage cuts? No ... because there weren't any. Rather, Fiat's turnaround reflected successful efforts to develop new products (like its trendy Cinquecento), to rebuild domestic market share, to boost foreign sales through exports and joint ventures and to implement leaner, dynamic management. That's what we need in North America - not wage cuts, which will only undermine auto sales as other employers follow the lead.

This silly confrontation has Harper's fingerprints all over it!

What a loser he turned out to be.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/TPComment

Only in North America, however, has this restructuring been sidetracked by an ultimately phony confrontation over auto worker wages. Auto workers are well paid everywhere - after all, that's a key reason governments chase auto investments in the first place. But only in Canada and the United States have governments made auto assistance contingent on union concessions. That's not the case in Germany or Japan (where auto workers make more than they do in Canada), nor in Brazil or Korea (where they make less). Only here has the future of the industry been linked to a frontal attack on unions.

...

How else to explain the arbitrary hook on which Clement and Co. have hung their hats? They're demanding that CAW costs be cut to match non-union plants in Canada. (By the way, accounting for demographics and capacity utilization, the true difference between union and non-union auto plants in Canada is more like $5 per hour, not $19.)

Canadian non-union plants account for just 4 per cent of North American sales. What about the other 96 per cent of the competition? Why not demand that CAW costs be cut to the level of unionized auto workers in Korea, say, or unionized workers in Mexico - both of which pose greater competitive threats than non-union Canadian plants? Because the demand is not about being competitive. It is about challenging the legitimacy and survival of unions. It aims to exploit the wedge, in an anti-union political culture, between workers who've managed to win a little more - and those who have yet to do so.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tried a similar stunt last November, in his infamous economic update. He tried to capitalize on fears of recession to snatch away the legal right to strike from federal employees (who also enjoy good wages and pensions). It was an opportunistic, mean-spirited act, driven by politics, not economics. It was defeated by the united opposition parties.

The same government is now trying the same thing with auto workers: capitalizing on economic fear to challenge the fundamental right of unions to exist and to bargain.

Harper and the yahoos screw up again!

I noticed the article was revised this morning to correct the false labour cost comparisons, likely provided by gc.ca.

I wanted to show how they were faked.

It had direct comparisons of US and Canadian labour costs that weren't correct.

The "$75/hr" claim that we keep seeing for the CAW cannot be compared to the $55 we see for the US for two reasons:

1) The US figure actually is hourly rate and does not include costs of health care and other benefits. Health care is expensive in the US and cheap in Canada.

2) The "$75" includes ALL costs incurred by the company, divided by the current number of workers. That is, it includes all costs for pensioners as well.

It's a false comparison promoted by Harper. I'm glad the Globe corrected it.

The 'real' discrepancy of about $5/hr is likely accounted for by higher costs of living in Canada.

A decrease of $19 as proposed would put Canadian Auto Workers way below international levels of pay and benefits for auto workers.

The CAW is offering to take wage cuts of $7.50/hr.

That's more than the real difference, and more than reasonable, imo.

Edited April 20, 2009 by tango

[madmax]

The Auto Industry and Unions can make their own case regarding wages and productivity and insolvency.

However, It is rare that a day is passing that another closure is announced.

Ingersol Fastener, which took wage freezes and eliminated their DB pension plan in 2005 or the company would close, announced that it is closing.

Ingersol Fasteners is a mid sized company that had a very diversified product line and few ties to the Automotive Industry.

Many many companies are failing. It is about 5 to 1 regular industry to auto.

Auto suppliers are falling like dominoes. Even if their is some plan to save assembly production, I do not see the support mechanism in place to keep these assembly lines going. The endgame is virtually the elimination of Auto manufacturing in Ontario by 2015.

[segnosaur]

I've read that in the US 1 in 4 jobs are related directly or indirectly to the automotive industry, however in am not sure what the Canadian figures are. That being said, allowing two of the big American 3 fail would dramatic and far reaching negative percussions throughout the entire highly integrated North America economy, and that includes Mexico.

Keep in mind that if one or more car companies goes out of business, those jobs may not necessarily be lost. The demand for cars will still exist, so people will either A: buy toyota/honda/etc., thus creating more jobs for THOSE companies, or B: some or all of the product lines will probably be sold to other companies, so that some or most of the jobs will still be saved.

I've noticed that the most vocal attacks are generally aimed at the unions, however the unions have been making concessions to companies for quite awhile now, including a two-tiered wage structure that allow the Big 3 to pay new-hirers less then the old hands, much the same deal that the Supermarkets cut with their unions years ago.

The concessions that have been made have been pretty useless.

- The 2-tier wage structure isn't going to be of any benefit at a time when car companies are actually laying off workers (and won't be hiring new ones for the forseeable future).

- GM and the CAW arranged the freezing of cost-of-living adjustments, but the inflation rate is very low (less than 2%) so that wasn't really a big concession.

- Workers will now contribute $30/month to their health care, but that works out to be a tiny fraction of their total income

But no one has mentioned the impact that these concessions and wage cuts have had on the local economies as a whole. Less income means less taxation revenue, less consumer spending and less investments into RRSP's and the like.

Not necessarily... by giving taxpayer money to the car companies, they reduce the amout others have for consumer spending and investments. It may be better to let the companies fail, and leave the tax dollars with the original taxpayer/consumer who will also spend or invest the money.

Meanwhile, the Big 3 upper management and Board members live the life of Reilly and continue to ignore the basics of producing quality products that give the consumer value for their money.

I am not saying that the managemetn of the Big 3 is innocent... however, any ability they had to fix the situation for the better is hampered by the unions.

[tango]

Keep in mind that if one or more car companies goes out of business, those jobs may not necessarily be lost. The demand for cars will still exist, so people will either A: buy toyota/honda/etc., thus creating more jobs for THOSE companies, or B: some or all of the product lines will probably be sold to other companies, so that some or most of the jobs will still be saved.

The concessions that have been made have been pretty useless.

- The 2-tier wage structure isn't going to be of any benefit at a time when car companies are actually laying off workers (and won't be hiring new ones for the forseeable future).

- GM and the CAW arranged the freezing of cost-of-living adjustments, but the inflation rate is very low (less than 2%) so that wasn't really a big concession.

- Workers will now contribute $30/month to their health care, but that works out to be a tiny fraction of their total income

Not necessarily... by giving taxpayer money to the car companies, they reduce the amout others have for consumer spending and investments. It may be better to let the companies fail, and leave the tax dollars with the original taxpayer/consumer who will also spend or invest the money.

I am not saying that the managemetn of the Big 3 is innocent... however, any ability they had to fix the situation for the better is hampered by the unions.

bs

The only thing hampered by the unions is Harper's union-bashing.

Concessions from the workers have absolutely no effect on the comnpanies' ability to do business.

[Moonlight Graham]

Thank you for showing us a poor arguement.

Unions+Car markers=Bad product (and to prove this you compare Domestic Car markers to foreign ones)

Too bad this isn't the problem with cost, the problem is retirees. Their is a high number of Pensioners for Domestic Car makers no so much with Toyota who has a structure that GM did 50 years ago when it had no pensioners.

GM has 400,000 Pensioners

Toyota has 200 BIG DIFFERENCE in fact it is the biggest difference and those who blame unions with out mentioning the pensioners make their arguement look dumb.

I did say wages & benefits. I include pensions in the "benefits" category. Either way, you still have to blame some of this on the unions and autoworkers, coupled with the shoddy cars the companies churn out.

[punked]

I did say wages & benefits. I include pensions in the "benefits" category. Either way, you still have to blame some of this on the unions and autoworkers, coupled with the shoddy cars the companies churn out.

No I think the car makers would have failed with or with out the Unions, given the fact that they would have still paid workers a living wage as well giving them a pension. So I don't blame it on the Unions at all.

[madmax]

bs

The only thing hampered by the unions is Harper's union-bashing.

Concessions from the workers have absolutely no effect on the comnpanies' ability to do business.

VW To surpass Toyota!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8459796

Volkswagen AG may have overtaken Toyota Motor Co to become the world's top-selling carmaker in the first quarter, thanks to government incentives that fuelled demand in VW's major markets.

And what about what Toyota makes???

Volkswagen has the luck of being strong in the markets that are currently growing, while Toyota is exposed to those that are collapsing," said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, head of the Centre for Automotive Research in Gelsenkirchen, adding the quarter's results would be "close".

Volkswagen is a big competitor for Toyota," said Koji Endo, auto analyst at Credit Suisse in Tokyo. "Audi is strong, Volkswagen is strong, and they're making good use of their small cars."

Toyota's first-quarter U.S. sales fell 36 percent, while sales in Japan for the core Toyota brand plummeted 31 percent. The two markets account for just under half of its global sales.

[Oleg Bach]

bs

The only thing hampered by the unions is Harper's union-bashing.

Concessions from the workers have absolutely no effect on the comnpanies' ability to do business.

This is the revenge of every arch conservative taking place...Conrad Blacks dream has come true - he has always had it out for unionist that he blamed for the destruction of his fathers career...ALL conservatives think like Black - he is one of the boys.....Harper is just doing what he is told...these new - and old cons have one rule of thumb as fars as maintaining the economic status quo - "give nothing take all" - If they could have us all working for 4 dollars an hour and living in social housing they would embrace socialism - and stay capitalist themselves...

[Topaz]

Have you ever heard of a CEO's of the automakers giving up their salary? NO! The unions at gave up 100 Mil in their last contract and then the money went to the CEO's as bonus pay. If the company didn't think they could afford to give the unions whatever they got, the unions weren't have gotten it! In this down turn EVERYONE should give up something but it seems the workers are being asked to give up more than the CEO's and the bondholders! Are you guys against ALL unions or just the CAW?

[M.Dancer]

Have you ever heard of a CEO's of the automakers giving up their salary? NO!

Toaster break down?

Try Richard Wagoner

[Smallc]

Toaster break down?

Allan Mulaly and Bill Ford too.

[Smallc]

Correction, Alan Mulally promised he would if Ford had to take government loans, so I guess he isn't now.

[madmax]

Have you ever heard of a CEO's of the automakers giving up their salary?

IIRC Lee Iacocca did it in the 80s and turned Chrysler around. He made more off stock options and worked for $1.

Regardless this is worth reading.....

After being fired at Ford, Lee was aggressively courted by the Chrysler Corporation, which was on the verge of going out of business (at the time, the company was losing millions, largely due to recalls of the company's Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, cars that Iacocca would later claim should never have been built). Iacocca joined Chrysler and began rebuilding the entire company from the ground up, laying off many workers, selling the loss-making Chrysler Europe division to Peugeot, and bringing in many former associates from his former company. Also from Ford, Iacocca brought to Chrysler the "Mini-Max" project which, in 1983, bore fruit in the wildly successful Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager. Henry Ford II had wanted nothing to do with the Mini-Max, which doomed the project at Ford. Hal Sperlich, the driving force behind the Mini-Max at Ford had been fired a few months before Iacocca and was waiting for him at Chrysler, where the two would make automotive history.

Iacocca arrived shortly after the introduction of the subcompact Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon. The front-wheel drive Omni and Horizon became instant hits, selling over 300,000 units each in their debut year, showing what was to come for Chrysler. Ironically, the Omni and Horizon had been designed alongside the Chrysler Horizon with much input from the Chrysler Europe division of the company, which Iacocca axed in 1978.

[edit] 1979 Auto Bailout

Realizing that the company would go out of business if it did not receive a significant amount of money to turn the company around, Iacocca approached the United States Congress in 1979 and asked for a loan guarantee. While some have said that Congress lent Chrysler the money, the government, in fact, only guaranteed the loans. Most observers thought this was an unprecedented move, but Iacocca pointed to the government bailouts of the airline and railroad industries, arguing that more jobs were at stake in Chrysler's possible demise. In the end, though the decision was controversial, Iacocca received the loan guarantee from the government.

After receiving this reprieve, Chrysler released the first of the K-Car line, the Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant, in 1981. Like the minivan which would come later, these compact automobiles were based on design proposals that Ford had rejected during Iacocca's (and Sperlich's) tenure there. Since they were released in the middle of the major 1980-1982 recession, these small, efficient and inexpensive, front-wheel drive cars sold rapidly.

Chrysler introduced the minivan, which was by and large Sperlich's "baby," in the fall of 1983, which led the automobile industry in sales for 25 years[3] Because of the K-cars and minivans, along with the reforms Iacocca implemented, the company turned around quickly and was able to repay the government-backed loans seven years earlier than expected.

Iacocca was also responsible for Chrysler's acquisition of AMC in 1987, which brought the profitable Jeep division under Chrysler's corporate umbrella. It also created the short-lived Eagle division, formed from the remnants of AMC. By this time, AMC had already finished most of the work with the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which Iacocca desperately wanted. The Grand Cherokee would not be released until 1992 for the 1993 model year, the same year that Iacocca retired.

Throughout the 1980s, Iacocca appeared in a series of commercials for the company's vehicles, using the ad campaign "The pride is back" to denote the turnaround of the corporation, while also telling buyers a phrase that later became his trademark: "If you can find a better car, buy it."

! Are you guys against ALL unions or just the CAW?

In tough times many people become petty, finger point, or require a scapegoat. There are many choices to fullfill these three needs. I prefer the CORPORATION EXECUTIVES, the GOVERNMENT, and then, market forces.

The Union only assembles the cars and are a small portion of the costs. Nothing that is going to turn anyones fortunes around.

However, I still have no idea how these automanufacturers are going to survive with no parts suppliers available.

Another non union parts supplier closed its doors today and more to come.

Toyota is Raving about the RAV. Apparently demand for the RAV, a SUV ironically, not a small car or a Green Car, is one of the stronger products that is not sitting on the showroom lots.

If one wishes to look back into some of my posts from 6 months ago, I mentioned that 20% and 25% paycuts were on offer in many Union and Non Union places. Some here suggested I was exageratting, or that it wasn't happening.

Some Civil servants were emphatic that this was silly talk.

Wages are going down. Its not a good thing, but it is happening. Those people who look for their pound of flesh from the Auto Assemblers, and it may come, should Reckonize that Toyota will have to match those cuts $dollar for Dollar if they are to remain competitive with manufacturing costs.

The way around that will be a significant use of FULLTIME TEMP LABOUR at bargain basement rates, with Millwrights and Mechanics and Electricians in the $14 to $18 range and General Labour in the $10 To $14 range.

At $27 Toyota will be expending too much in Labour Costs but would not be able to drop wages without fear of Unionization. Therefore all new workforce employees will start under indefinite contracts as occurs in Japan, where a Non Union Temp works at Honda or Toyota alongside their unionized counterparts for 20 years.

Two tiered wages and a poorer workforce are the wave of the future.

40% of new employment is fulltime temp agency work.

Enjoy.

[madmax]

So I don't blame it on the Unions at all.

Somehow,,,, Let the Auto Makers FALL has turned into someones UNION rant.

Letting the Automakers fall is a legitimate choice to consider. WHile we debate this, numerous places are closing their doors. Hundreds of thousands and soon millions will be out of work. The tidal wave hasn't hit the coast, its still building steam. Its not just automakers, much of the economy, the local economy is going to tank like people have never experienced in their lifetime.

This is much larger then a foolish debate claiming and blaming Unions, the rights of people to associate, or the fact that companies offered pensions and failed to put money into them.

Entire cities and nearby cities are going to come to a screaching halt, and their debtloads are going to be ENORMOUS!!!

Currently AUTO hasn't failed. If you look, the auto industry has been taking months upon months upon months claiming they are going to go under.....

Meanwhile the 100,000 of thousands of other employees are being thrown out of work, as their companies choose to pool resources in foreign countries and close down recently purchased Canadian Operations.

It has been this elimination of the middleclass consumer that has brought down the Canadian Economy.

For Automakers here, it took much longer for sales to catch up to the problem and then the manufacturers, all of them, engaged in excessive autoproduction and Toyotas claim to producing only vehicles that had been sold, proved to be a MYTH!!! No surprise there.

However, Automakers should have recognised that the US was suffering a meltdown through Sub PRime MOrtgage Fiasco, Derugalation and a rush to globalization.

But they didn't. Greed begets Greed and they overproduced for a collapsing demand.

Somehow the Unions are responsible for this decision.

The foolish decision of Toyota and GM to play king of the castle and be the #1 automaker.

Companies are allowed to dream, set goals, and compete with one another.

Much like the idiots we call economists, all these wonderful executives have lead their corporations down the garden path.

As for BAILOUTS???

Why are Land Developers and Politicians often joined at the hip? Why do Billionaire Developers get joe public to pay their expenses and development costs???

Corporate Welfare isn't going to go away.

A policy to determine if we need an autosector should be taken into consideration.

Should we determine that we don't, then Ontario needs to file for Bankruptcy protection.

If we determine that we need and autosector, then handing over $$$ isn't going to solve the problem.

If we determine that we need a manufacturing sector, someone better figure out what the hell is going on out there.

Don't hold your breath.

[segnosaur]

bs

The only thing hampered by the unions is Harper's union-bashing.

Concessions from the workers have absolutely no effect on the comnpanies' ability to do business.

Nice to see you providing so much evidence to support your claims.

That's right, you DIDN'T provide any such evidence.

Lets look at some numbers, shall we?

In 2007, the average labour cost for GM, Ford and Christler was between $70 and $76. The average labour cost for Honda/Toyota was $48. So, on average, the labour will cost around $25/hour more for unionized labour (around 34% more).

Now, at one point I remember the unions claiming that only 7% of the cost of a new vehicle was labour. (I don't exactly trust their calculations, but lets assume they're correct). The average cost of a new vehicle in 2008 was $30,877. Applying a 34% savings to the 7% of labour costs means that, if everthing else were equal, you'd have to pay $740 more for an American car on average then you would for a Japanese care. Assuming you had 2 cars of similar sizes/features, to a lot of people paying $740 more would be enough to cause many people to buy the cheaper vehicle. That's the equivalent of getting free car insurance for a year. That would be enough to fill a standard gas tank with gas rougly 20 times.

Now, how many people do YOU know who would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for product A than product B?

Now, I'm sure that some people will use the claim "But its management's fault that they produce cr*py cars". Well, I've already admitted that management is not totally blameless. However, if labour costs were lower, then GM/Ford/Chrysler could lower the price of their 'cr*py' cars, and at least some people would be willing to give up a little quality in order to save some money.

Sources for data:

http://www.wheels.ca/article/28474

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...pecialGlobeAuto

[Peter F]

Somehow,,,, Let the Auto Makers FALL has turned into someones UNION rant.

Letting the Automakers fall is a legitimate choice to consider.

.....

Much like the idiots we call economists, all these wonderful executives have lead their corporations down the garden path.

As for BAILOUTS???

Why are Land Developers and Politicians often joined at the hip? Why do Billionaire Developers get joe public to pay their expenses and development costs???

Corporate Welfare isn't going to go away.

A policy to determine if we need an autosector should be taken into consideration.

Should we determine that we don't, then Ontario needs to file for Bankruptcy protection.

If we determine that we need and autosector, then handing over $$$ isn't going to solve the problem.

If we determine that we need a manufacturing sector, someone better figure out what the hell is going on out there.

Don't hold your breath.

There it is folks, post of the year.

[segnosaur]

Have you ever heard of a CEO's of the automakers giving up their salary? NO! The unions at gave up 100 Mil in their last contract and then the money went to the CEO's as bonus pay.

A little perspective is in order here...

As I pointed out before, many of the concessions on the part of the unions were not concessions at all... giving up a cost-of-living increase when inflation is so low doesn't really mean that much.

As for executive pay...whether you think executives are overpaid or not, the amount of compensation they receive is such a small part of a corporation's budget.

If the company didn't think they could afford to give the unions whatever they got, the unions weren't have gotten it!

Ummm... here's the thing... in most places in Canada and the U.S., unions have an incredible amount of power and can easily shut down any auto manufacturer. In most cases, those manufacturers had a choice between either A: Accept a bad union deal, or B: don't produce ANY cars and go out of business. For many people, that's not exactly much of a choice.

Its kind of like saying that ransom paid to hijackers means the people paying are "happy" to do so, whereas in many cases they're trying to select the lesser of 2 evils.

In this down turn EVERYONE should give up something but it seems the workers are being asked to give up more than the CEO's and the bondholders!

If the workers were getting way more than they deserve, then they SHOULD be asked to give up more. (Average labour costs were 30% higher at GM/Ford/Chrysler than Honda/Toyota. If people at Honda/Toyota thought their wages were sufficient, why exactly should a Ford worker expect significantly more?

Are you guys against ALL unions or just the CAW?

Actually, I am against all unions. Its just that the CAW is especially vocal/problematic.

You see, unions are a form of collusion/price fixing/monopoly. In ANY other situation, such activity would be considered illegal. (Companies can and do get charged if they make arrangements with their competitors to artificially inflate prices.) Yet when you have unions, you have a group of people providing a 'good' (i.e. their labour) where they are conspiring with other co-workers to artificially inflate prices.

So why is price fixing a federal offence in one case, yet totally accepted by people such as yourself when you slap the word 'union' on it?

[Topaz]

Now that the CAW has made a deal with Chryslers, I noticed online and in coffee shops, were every people gather, they were down on the CAW and unions and alot of the info. they had was outdated or just wrong. In the local coffee shop, the one group that was running down the CAW for taking money from THEM were the farmers. Now coming from a farming family, I know that this group always gets money from every Federal govt for various sources. One thing the farmers and other employees don't have to deal with, unless its a foreign employer, is told to take this deal or we will leave the country and that is what happened to the CAW. Chrylser threatened to leave Canada and they weren't the first to have this threat and they probably won't be the last one either. As far as losing their semi-private coverage, it doesn't matter with the way the healthcare system in Ontario, most people will ended up in a ward anyway.

[Molly]

In the local coffee shop, the one group that was running down the CAW for taking money from THEM were the farmers. Now coming from a farming family, I know that this group always gets money from every Federal govt for various sources.

Where farming is concerned... the government giveth, and the government taketh away....