I'm having a deja vu: in their "job security" agreement with GM, the CAW agree to let GM cut jobs if (1) productivity increases; (2) technology changes; (3) market share declines; or (4) a product line is discontinued. It's not clear to me what the CAW gained, especially since GM is also allowed to get rid oftwo parts plants they wanted to sell. Maybe I just don't get this process, but time and time again I see unions making various sorts of concessions in exchange for "job security" promises of one sort or another that, as far as I can tell, don't amount to a hill of beans. It seems as if, no less than corporations are alleged to do, unions take a very short-term view, protecting temporarily the status of existing workers at the cost of the union and workers' long-term power. Am I just wrong about this and in fact unions are winning significant concessions from corporations regarding long term job security for workers, or are these various promises on the part of the corporations little more than rhetorical dressing so the unions can save face? On the other hand, CAW workers got health and some other benefits for same-sex partners. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
