Look For The Union Label

It's the same old story:

• a successful company providing jobs becomes unionized
• union demands, demands, demands
• company becomes uncompetitive because of high costs of union demands
• company has to close parts or all of their business
• jobs lost, families hurt, dreams gone

Ford Motor Company announced plans on Monday to eliminate between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs by 2012.

It's more than just these companies are not producing more economical vehicles - it's the extreme operating costs. The UAW, in desperation not to loose even more union jobs, has given in to GM a tiny bit by agreeing it's retired members will contribute to their (previously "free") healthcare - saving $1 BILLION - and that should give the reader a glimpse of these retirement and health packages cost companies (as well as cities when it comes to unionized government workers).

In November, GM laid out a restructuring plan that calls for slashing 30,000 jobs and closing nine plants. The United Auto Workers union has also agreed to make its retired members start contributing to their health care, a move that could save GM $1 billion annually.

Jan. 26, 2006
General Motors posted a $8.6 billion loss for 2005, amid North American weakness and big charges tied to restructuring and Delphi. (WSJ email alert - sorry, no link at this time)

The unions and auto makers are hoping that President Bush (the taxpayer) will help bail them out of their self-inflicted predicament. So far, Bush as said no - and told the automakers to start making cars people want and that are less dependent on oil.

Gee - haven't the liberals been trying to convince the world that Bush is an oil-hungry capitalist? Weren't the liberals trying to tell the world the only reason Bush went into Iraq was for the oil? Well DUH - why would he be wanting cars that use less or even no oil? I wonder if those liberals have been lying to the American people.