Granted, unions aren't the best friend of the consumer or the marketplace.
But aren't we getting ahead of ourselves if fear of future unions gets in the way of dealing with problems that exist now?

The sucess of the auto companies from Japan is not totally been the result of have non union shops. First of in most cases they have a pretty good package available to their workers. They also have shown that they can do business in a lot of other ways far better then the big three have done and thus can keep prioces in check and still turn out a quality product.

To compare a union which is a collective of workers who seek to gain a point of leverage with the company they work for to a cartel like opec is nuts. OPEC controls is poduct and has the power to tell its consumers here is the product and here is the price you will pay for it. You have no where else to get so pay up or shut up. Come on now, that is not what a union does.

OK, higher wages will often drive higher prices, but at the same time it is not a given that keeping the wages in check will mean lower prices. There is always the element of greed to contend with as companies seek to maximize profits.

When I was working on my business degree many years ago, an econ prof of mine said that the purpose of the company was to get as much production out of its workers as possible while paying them as little as possible. While at the same time the job of the worker was to work as little as possible while getting as much back in wages as possible. In an ideal world the two forces meet somewhere in between. Workers putting forth enough effort to produce a quality product while being paid an livable wage. Problem we do not live in an ideal world.

I am a non union worker. Recently I approached the powers to be in my little company with the idea that perhaps based on my background, education and over all effort it would be nice if I made a bit more then I was getting at the time for the work that I do. They did not see it in the same light as I did and declined my request. So I packed up my resume and went out looking elsewhere. When I came in and told them I was leaving because I had a better offer, they decided that... well perhaps I was in fact worth a little more and made a offer. So now I make more then what I asked for in the first place, because I had a little leverage. The average worker does not have that without a union to stand behind them.

I do not think that unions are always right. Nor do I think as the writer does that they are sole problem with the economy. They have become necessary in our economy because of the way companies often deal with their workers.

Most government non-salaried workers are unionized. TSA workers should be allowed..... under our government... to decide whether or not they want to be in a union. It is their right.

For one Senator to block an appointment for a TSA chief - for most of 2009 - well, I just think it's political grandstanding that will blow up on the Senator. It is not the Senator's right to block unionizing thru his political position.

Hahaha! They'll be shorter lines for sure. It will also give new meaning to a new No Fly list.

You see, it's more the opposite for me. I think it really depends on your community. I've become conditioned to be suspicious of every unattended bag. I look at people twice and wonder about that person standing next to me on the Metro or someone detonating a car bomb on the 14th St. bridge in the middle of rush hour as I'm driving across. I remember waiting for a bus at the Pentagon Metro station and there was an unattended knapsack on a bench. Someone told the MP's, who routinely patrol there, along with Metro Police, and they shut the place down. As it turned out, it wasn't a bomb, I guess someone just forgot it, but it was a scary situation to be sure. This is the world we live in now. It's the price we pay to live where we live.

It's totally ridiculous and an extremely lame excuse for not appointing someone to a very important position. But, I have to say this, where are this man's supporters to allow this appointment to be blocked for so long? How is this allowed to happen? Why are we only hearing about this now, in light of a near tragedy? You know the old saying, either ****, or get off the pot. It's time for action. This should have never been allowed to drag on for a year.

Different subjects, but I didn't see the need to start new threads:
Mark McGwire
NBC

I find McGwire's confession and apology to be empty of any substance. He did steroids but it was a low dose. He didn't come clean when it was appropriate to do so because he wanted to protect his family and friends. He didn't do steroids to improve his performance.
Blah, blah, blah.
It would have been better if he'd gone to his grave with the secret.
This is such a cop-out, along the lines of Clinton not inhaling.

Okay, I wasn't following this in the beginning. Does anybody remember a few years ago when it was announced that Leno would leave The Tonight Show and Conan would take over? Was that Leno's decision or the executives'? I ask because when the time came for the switch, NBC, devoid of creative talent that they're willing (able?) to pay for, thought it better to bring Leno back instead of producing 5 original programs. And now that the mission is being aborted, they want to put Leno back in his old spot - but for only 30 minutes - and shaft Conan in the process.

I understand, from what I have read, that it was very similar to Johnny Carson's "decision" to retire. NBC top brass basically forced it on Jay. And now Jay has lost 40% of the 10PM audience, and Conan has lost just over 50% of Jay's 11:30PM audience.

Can't see any way they fix this mess. Watched Jay last night, which I seldom do, and he was really funny. This is providing him a ton of ammunition for his monologue.

Problem is the format has become rather dated. The Tonight Show has not changed much over several decades. Then they add yet another version of the thing. I get the feeling that people are just growing tired of it. If you watch Jay at ten why hang around for the Tonight show? With ratings down on both shows the only one smiling is David Letterman. I think the time may have come to rethink the whole late night thing and come up with something fresh.

As for good old Mark....kick he is butt out of baseball along with Bonds, Sosa and anyone else who used the drugs to aid performance. What does he mean he did not take them to boost his performance? That's the only thing there are used for, who does this fool think he is kidding. Pete Rose is banned from baseball for betting, which is wrong, but did not effect the outcome of games. Mark and others do drugs which do have an very definite effect on the game and yet they are allowed to return. The logic of it all escapes me. So now McGuire is a hitting coach. What he is first lesson, how to hide the banned substance you are now using!

Actually, Jay has about the same audience numbers he had before; about 5+ million. Letterman has about 4.2 million nightly, and is up slightly. You can infer that O'Brien with 2.5 million has lost some of those to Letterman, who was getting beaten consistently by Jay for the last several years.

I think they are nervous at NBC because Conan was expected to be really strong in the under-30 demographic, and is getting beaten there by Letterman quite badly.

So they lost the older demographic by moving Jay, and are losing the younger demographic by sticking with Conan. They need to do something. And that something may include showing Conan the door, paying his contract out, and giving Jay back his show.