#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 04:25 PM
Nice try, but that's "the management label". The Union workers fulfilled their part of the bargain.
Come on Danforth, quit "funnin'" us. You know better than that.
First there was an increase in productivity before there was anything for the unions to go after.
Then the owners tried not to "share" the increased productivity.
Unions fulfilled a useful function in securing more equitable distribution of what was produced.
Then the unions secured power that enabled them to gain an unsupportable share of the product as wages for GM employees that far exceeded their market value and their value as producers, demonstrated. GM crashed.
The same situation occurred in California, where state employees working in conjunction with politicians whom they supported, created a symbiotic relationship that nurtured them. The compensation of the average state worker approximated $60,000, while that of the average private sector worker approximated $30,000.
The inordinate compensation of workers in both GM and the State of California created a disequilibrium, and coupled with other factors caused those two entities to crash.
Yes Danforth, the power of the unions and circumstances which enabled them to get more than they should if the system was to continue to function, contributed greatly to the crash of manufacturing and government entities. Initially, the unions served a useful function. Eventually, there particpation distorted the market and resulted in a crash. The dynamics of the marketplace and the political scene caused the managers of GM and the politicians to be complicit as such complicity also served their own interests.
