"...Once [unions] win comfortable contracts, they often become
> impediments to the kind of innovation and flexibility essential to
> success in today's economy. So in the name of 'job security,' they
> undermine a company's--or a nation's--competitiveness. The result, over
> time, is less job security for everyone, especially the union
> workforce. There's no better example of this than GM, where the UAW now
> represents about 74,000 hourly workers, compared to 246,000 in 1994. > Some security..."
>
> Wall Street Journal:formatting link
>
Odd isn't it that GM continues to lose more and more market share as it reduces it's unionized labor force, and yet the loss of market share is the unionized workers' fault. Bizarro economic model, no? Let's not blame the bean-counter managers who force (non-union) engineers to cut corners in the design to save a few dollars per unit but which results in s***ty designs and inferior quality.
Let's face it, most managers at GM are really indifferent to cars. GM could be making appliances for all they care. They serve only one master, profit. Producing high quality cars that are fun to drive is way down their list of priorities. And quality starts with a quality design. The best factory workers in the world can't produce a quality product from an inferior design and using sub-standard parts.