Sorry it's taken me a month to reply but I forgot I posted here.

First of all, I find it interesting that most of the the replies posted didn't respond to most of my talking points. I'm assuming that they were irrelevant in a way I don't realize or that there was no valid response formulated. Either way, I'd like to see some responses to my comments, if you do have some. it's possible that you can change my opinion but it's not going to happen until there is an attempt educate me on where I'm misunderstanding.

Anyhow here are my responses:

To Jo Anns posting:
The time of the unions have seen their day they are not needed any more and they only cause trouble company's know if they do not pay a decent wage and benefits they will not draw good employees a person should not be forced to join a union under duress ( join or you don't work here etc. ) they have driven up labor costs in the auto industery to an all time high I never made $30 to $50 an hour in all my working history and to have people sitting idel doing nothing a getting paid that is preposterous time to stop this crazyness and let the auto company's run their own business instead of the unions tellin them how they are going to be run.

The time of the unions have seen their day they are not needed any more and they only cause trouble company's know if they do not pay a decent wage and benefits they will not draw good employees

If there had been no historical purpose to Unions, they would have never been formed. The formation of Unions was a result of wealthy business owners taking advantage of the monsterous leverage and power they had. There were no labor laws and so these people did what they wanted regardless of whether it was ethical. Your statement seems to imply that things have changed and that that would not happen today. I strongly disagree. It's happening all over the world. Haven't you seen the reporting on wages earned in Third World countries? Just a few days ago I came across an old email thread that was going around years ago stating that Michael Jordan receives more money from Nike for using his image and name than all of the direct and indirect workers outside of the USA combined. That does not sound like a balanced pay scale to me. Employees that work for Unions average higher pay wages and benefits than non-Union workers. This results in a side benefit to workers that don't work for Union jobs in that the fact that these Union jobs are out there and hotly sought, non-Union employers need to push up their compensation in order to compete in the job market. What do you propose to replace this influence? Are you looking to rely on the generosity of upper management, owners and CEO's? Why would you be willing to take that chance?

If the people in these positions were trustworthy in this respect, there would have been no need for the Unions that were spawned as a direct response to the abuses imposed by big business in the turn of the last century to start with.

Your statement entirely relies on the mistaken assumption that those in power would no longer follow the tactics of Robber Barons. In my opinion, the existing labor situations in countries other than ours is a living and direct contradiction to your assumption.

a person should not be forced to join a union under duress ( join or you don't work here etc. ) they have driven up labor costs in the auto industry to an all time high I never made $30 to $50 an hour in all my working history and to have people sitting idle doing nothing a getting paid that is preposterous

I agree that no one should be required to join a union under duress. I feel that you're making a false assumption in that you're assuming that these people were required to do so. I have to assume that they applied for positions in a company known to have a Union. Why didn't they seek a job elsewhere? Was it because they were attracted to the large salary and benefits compensation that the unions fought for? I think I'm safe in assuming that even the non-Union jobs that these companies pay a higher than industry average due to the influence of the union covered jobs. I read a few months ago an article published discussing the gap in salary between labor and CEO's. The article reported that a few decades ago, the average salary gap between labor and CEO's was a difference of 30 to 40. That gap as of the article writing had exploded to 344 times. (Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/01) I am just dumbfounded that anyone would be willing to believe that companies won't pay out as little as they possibly can based not on a comparison of life years ago but based on what is in fact happening in this world today! Go online, research what global corporations are doing and paying to countries that are now going through what we did at the turn of the century. This is not old news that will never happen again. It's happening today! You're just not seeing it.

You declare that the problem with the auto industry is the fault of the compensation that unions got their workers. You may be right. It may be time for the unions to give something back. I've always found it curious, however, that when management reports that it's time for a pay cut for the health of the company, they're never talking about themselves; only labor. If the company is ailing that badly, then why is management not also taking a cut? I feel this speaks directly to how much management can be trusted to be looking out for labor.

to have people sitting idel doing nothing a getting paid that is preposterous

Agreed. Fire the bums.

auto company's run their own business instead of the unions tellin them how they are going to be run

I must be missing something here. Management DOES determine how the company is run. Unions fight for their members benefit. It's up to management to determine how to run the business based on the negotiated agreements between them and labor. No different than it being up to them to determine how to run the business based on the negotiated contracts between them and their vendors. Management needs to start earning those salaries they give themselves or admit they can't do the job and get the hell out of the way.

To bismark's posting:

No, we are only interested in making union representation and membership voluntary.

I have no problem with this in specific but as an outsider reader of this website, you don't come off as 'we like labor but just want to fix some things'. My impression of this site is that it is anti-labor. In my opinion, you need to do a better job with delivering your 'message'.

To californias posting:

1. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger mentioned by name the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation as one of the problems and he also stated “An organization we do not even know who there donors are”.

I once belonged to the Union, I can tell you, if the Unions ever got there hands on the list of donors, it would be used to send THUGS and threats against those donors. Here is what the Union Know but will not admit, Many of the Donors are Members of the Unions, forced to belong and pay dues to the Unions against there will.

Yes, he did mention the name. There's nothing threatening in stating the name of an enemy to your organization. If I'm a Democrat and say the word Republican, is that also to be considered a threat? I am on neither side of the fence that this website is purporting to support (non-manditory union membership) and I too am curious who's paying for this? If it truly is the union members as you state, then why, if they don't like their current working conditions, don't they find another job? Would it be perhaps because they wouldn't be able to find a compensation package that comes close to what the Union has gotten them? If the Unions never existed in this country, what do you think the benefits compensation for their jobs would look like? Personally, I don't think it would be anywhere near what they are getting now minus the union dues. What I'm hearing is that these people are enjoying their cake and have now decided it's time to fire the baker. What need for a baker when they already have the cake?

I belonged to a Union years ago in my youth. I never encountered thugs or threats. That shouldn't be tolerated in any situation. Fix the problem. Thugs.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger even implied that it might be the Non-Union Auto makers, But he know that is not true.
(Truth is, the Non-Union Auto Makers like there being a Strong UAW, Means the big three are a lot less competitive.)

Please keep in mind that when you say "Non-Union Auto Makers" you are referring to the owners and management. What do does the labor in these companies think? You don't think they are envious of the compensation package that these Union members enjoy?

One more thing, and this is very Important:
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

They are for protecting Rights, and the Right of Free Association is one of those, that is the Right to choices to or to choice not to belong to and organization.

I hear you. Unfortunately, I feel that these people are then simply riding on the coattails of paying union members and the benefits they receive. You would be hard-pressed to convince me that in a company with both union and non-union employees that during an non-union employees review, the reviewer never has to deal with comparisons to the benefits package enjoyed by union employees. The non-union employees want/get a benefit from the union employees but aren't interested in paying the cost for those benefits.

Unions have lost there focus over the past 100 years, they do not believe in there own words any more and only exist to day to Shear Sheep , that is to take money from workers with out providing any servers and with out there consent, really a form of Legalized Racketeering.

So the benefits the Unions got for the employees was removed or are they still enjoying those benefits? Personally, I only really need auto insurance when I am in a collision but strangely enough, I can't find an auto insurer only willing to accept that I only want to pay them on the days I have an accident. It may be that the unions may need to refocus. I'll concede that. I disagree that there is no more need for unions as I feel you are implying here. Go ahead, get rid of unions. Management would glory in this as they slowly over the years strip away all of the hard-fought benefits garnered by the unions. In my opinion, all of this is VERY shortsighted thinking.

If UAW President Ron Gettelfinger really believed in the Noble cause of the Union, He would embrace the National Right to Work Foundation and it ideas as Allies and Demand that Congress Pass a National Right to Work Law for the Whole country. A Union can only work when membership is voluntary, not mandatory

Amusing. Declaring that your antagonist must see your point of view in order to be noble. Union membership IS voluntary. If you don't like belonging to a union, get a job elsewhere. (Let me guess, union members won't do that because they can't find jobs that offer the same compensation and also be non-union. Again, shortsighed logic).