"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Merck to cut 7,000 jobs

GM to cut 30,000 jobs

Ford to cut 4000 jobs

Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

But how can this be? Toyota builds a lot of its cars in the US.

Oh, never mind. Their US manufacturing plants are non-union.









Backseat Driver
Norma Rae Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Jerry Flint, 03.12.03, 1:20 PM ET

Once upon a time, the American auto industry was a union shop. Not any more.
Nonunion vehicle assembly is expanding fast. The nonunion production comes
from the foreign manufacturers that have built plants in North America. And
they are building more. It's a serious disadvantage for the unionized
Detroit companies--Ford Motor, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler--but
there's nothing the union can do about it.

The United Automobile Workers (UAW) union has dominated the domestic
manufacturers for more than half a century. The union cuts the same basic
deal with all manufacturers. What one manufacturer agrees to, the others
must agree to, no matter what the condition of the individual company.

Such inflexibility by the union made it tough on the little automakers,
which is one of the reasons there aren't independent automakers like
Studebaker anymore. There was no break for being small or poor. The UAW rule
is that labor is not to be a competitive factor.

What did the union want all these years? In the words of Samuel Gompers,
"More."

And the UAW always got it. More pay, more benefits, more paid time off, more
pensions and profit sharing.

Times are a changing. In 1986, the Canadian branch of the UAW split off and
became independent; it's not averse to undercutting the American UAW to win
jobs up north. Then there is the growth of the nonunion plants.


http://www.forbes.com/columnists/200...0311flint.html