> As the article points out, the UAW is seemingly prepared to destroy GM in order to get its own way.

In many cases, today's unions are perfectly content to destroy a company or even an industry as *part* of getting its way. It's not, "Meet our demands, or we'll make you fold," it's, "Meet these demands that will cause you to fold."

A hundred years ago, the need for unions to protect worker rights was very important. Today, in this country, the balance of power has shifted to the other extreme. Unions are no longer in the business of helping the oppressed individual through force of numbers. They are companies unto themselves. The difference is that real companies (allegedly) produce products and services that fill needs, while unions produce nothing at all. They're simply parasites, wielding their power to gain economic and/or political advantages by force.

I'm not anti-union, despite the harsh language above. It's just like anything else -- unions are neither inherently good, nor inherently evil, but they can be used for good or for evil. Like I said, at one time, unions were the only way to stop companies from using their power to commit horrendous atrocities on the working man. But somewhere along the line, the unions won, and yet they continue to fight. In some industries, unions have formed where the workers never *were* oppressed or taken advantage of, because, hey, if the power of a union can eke out higher salaries and benefits, why not? But it's shortsighted: squeeze companies like that, and the result is lower revenue, fewer jobs, and less money to go around. If you put a company out of business thanks to union demands (and it does happen), what have you accomplished?

There is still a place for unions today, but it's mostly in third-world countries, where sweatshops continue to thrive.