Government employees

Strangulation by Union

Rules that "protect" government workers from arbitrary dismissal and require everyone be treated equally are bad for taxpayers and even unions.


The Chicago teachers strike is over, but the public didn't win. Schools will still transfer bad teachers to other schools because it's nearly impossible to fire them. When bad teachers go from school to school, principals call it "the dance of the lemons." It would be funny if those teachers didn't slowly wreck children's lives.

The basic issue is: Who decides how to manage a workplace? Unions say it's good that they protect American workers from arbitrary dismissal and make sure everyone is treated equally.

But it's not good.

Rules that "protect" government workers from arbitrary dismissal and require everyone be treated equally are bad for taxpayers and "customers"—and even union workers themselves.

But this is not intuitive. Union workers certainly have no clue about it.

At a union rally, I asked union workers if it bothered them that slackers are paid as much as good workers. The activists actually said, "There is no slacker," and that union rules mean less productive colleagues are helped, "brought up to speed."

C'mon, I asked, aren't there some workers who are just lazy, who drag the enterprise down?

"No!" they told me.

The union activists were also quick to say that unions built the middle class, that without unions, greedy bosses would lead a "race to the bottom" and pay workers next to nothing. "There would be no weekend, or eight-hour day!" they told me. "All that came from unions!"


Workers' lives improved in America because of free enterprise, not because of union rules. Union contracts helped workers for a while, but then they hurt—even union workers—because the rigid rules prevent flexibility in response to new market conditions. They slow growth. And growth—increasing productivity, which leads to higher wages and new opportunities—is what is best for workers.

In 1914, Henry Ford doubled his employees' wages to $5 a day and cut their workday to eight hours. He then hired more people. He didn't do this out of benevolence. As Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations," "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." It was in Ford's interest to increase his company's profits, and to do that he needed to attract the best workers he could find. When companies compete for workers, they get higher wages and better working conditions. Ford shortened the workday to better compete. Then GM and Chrysler matched Ford's deal to keep up. Workers won.

All without a union. It wasn't until 30 years later that the UAW appeared and unionized the workers. Union membership gave them good benefits for a while, but then growth slowed and stopped. That sure didn't help workers. Consider what happened at GM. Over the past 20 years, much-less-unionized Toyota created 15,000 jobs—in America, not in Japan. Over that same period, GM lost 400,000 American jobs. One reason GM shrank was union rules. How's that good for workers?

Of course workers have a right to unionize—it's part of freedom of association. But to be effective, that right needs a free-market environment. That means no compulsory membership—free association, not forced association. Second, enterprise must be truly free and competitive, which means no privilege or favoritism from government—no bailouts and crony capitalism.

When enterprise is competitive, workers acquire more bargaining power because multiple employers bid for their services. Also, self-employment is a real option because no government barriers to entry prevent it (like licensing, zoning orcomplicated taxes and rules). As the great economics writer Henry Hazlitt pointed out, free unions can play a constructive role when they have to attract members by offering valuable services, such as information on the latest market conditions. But the market must be free in all respects.

Today, workers should know the downside of unionizing. It's not just the cost of their union dues. It's the opportunities lost in union shops because the rules limit entrepreneurs' ability to change, adapt and grow. It's that freedom—free enterprise—that gives America and workers the power to prosper.

NEXT: Markets Fall Amid Spanish Economic Woes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. there once was a girl from Brighton
    whose boyfriend said “My, that’s a tight one!”
    she said “You poor soul,
    you’ve got the wrong hole
    but there’s plenty of room in the right one!”

    1. I actually had a chick punch me in the face during sex once. We were both pretty drunk and during a change up she said “wrong area.” I was only joking when i said “are you sure?” Punch! I guess she wasn’t drunk enough.

      1. tmi, seriously

      2. You know, I had the exact same experience with your mom. What a coincidence, huh?

        1. I know you’re lying because she never would have said “wrong area.”


          1. You’re right, that was ProL’s mom. My mistake.

        2. Why are you always on about moms, Episiarch?

          1. His kind reproduces by fission, so he’s jealous of people with actual parents.

          2. Because I miss yours, ProL. (sniff)

            1. I thought it was because you wanted to be one.

              1. It can be both!

                1. That’s what your mom screemed in the last pron I saw her in.

      3. The very concept of wrong holes is a deal breaker. Especially when they’re my holes.

        1. Killazontherun| 9.26.12 @ 1:27PM |#

          The very concept of wrong holes is a deal breaker.

          You will never be any good at pool

    2. In the garden of eden lay Adam,
      Stroking the breast of his madam,
      He roared with mirth,
      For he knew on this Earth,
      There were only two balls and he had ’em

  2. “There would be no weekend, or eight-hour day!” they told me. “All that came from unions!”

    The other canard with deep roots that seem it cannot die is that unions helped in passing anti-“child labor” laws. Yes, there was some of that, along other great things like anti-“Negro labor” laws. Both pieces of legislation were meant to reduce competition from cheaper sources of labor (teenagers wanting to work and American blacks) and not because of some lofty concern for the well-being of children – or blacks, for that matter.

    1. So without unions, I wouldn’t know what day of the week it is. And I would be sending my kids off to work in sweatshops instead of school.

      Thank you unions.

    2. And don’t forget the long tradition of union nativism.

    3. The other canard with deep roots

      The duck is a tree?

      Man you people strangle language like… uhm…. unions…. choking… chickens…in some sort of homoerotic asphyixiation thing.

    4. Because the only thing preventing kids from being forced into practical slave labor is the law against it. Parents would be unable to stop anything untoward from happening.

    5. Surely the weekend has it origins in Sundays being the day of rest.

    6. The other aspect of labor unions that the apologists tend to gloss over is, up until about 30 years ago, they were extremely anti-immigrant starting in about the early 20th century. They basically supported every immigration restriction act for decades on the principle that doing so limited the supply and increased the demand for labor, and thus led to higher salaries.

  3. The activists actually said, “There is no slacker,” and that union rules mean less productive colleagues are helped, “brought up to speed.”

    Those were obviously the slackers speaking.

    1. Go to a rally and you’d have to search long and hard to find the precious few that aren’t.

  4. That photo of the Hutt Cartel says all that needs to be said.

    1. “The more you beat your Bingo arms, the more children will slip through your fingers!”

  5. as a (public) union member myself, i agree with much of what stossel says here, and have said so in the past. stipulated: unions generally protect the lowest common denominator… the guy doing the bare minimum. that he will get paid better and have better benefits solely based on longevity vs. a newer hard charging rookie.

    but i consider some other things. i work an extremely political job. i remember a few years back, one of my partners pulled over a bigwig in a national civil rights org. traffic stop did not go well, and to make a long story short, all sorts of accusations were thrown at him that he was racially profiling , rude, and etc. and i have little doubt that if he did not have union protection, they would have canned him. didn’t matter if the accusations were true or false, it’s easier for the politicians above him to fire him and curry favor with this civil rights org etc. than to give this officer due process, let alone the benefit of the doubt.

    they pulled all his citations over the prior 5 yrs. tried to find some pattern of racial profiling. and of course they found none. and nothing happened, but w/o union protection – forget about it.

    1. Cool story, bro.

      1. Hey! That’s my line!

        *writes grievance against sarc*

    2. we’ve had officers unjustly fired,unjustly indicted and it’s our union that helps with the attorney, etc. and ONLY if the union recommends it will the case go to arbitration. often, when the union thinks the officer is a bad apple and this happens OFTEN, they will deny arbitration. my buddy who was charged with assault was acquitted and i have zero doubt that the very skilled union lawyer helped. and let’s remember, in our justice system, the better your lawyer, the better your chances. it’s not “cosmically ” fair. see: sowell

      and because of our union negotiated binding arbitration, not only was he rehired with back pay but ALSO the arbitrator’s report, which laid out the facts, the forensics, etc. etc. is a public document that ALL can see and that fully cleared his name. and it was very harsh of the admin.

      iow, i agree with stossell. union protect a lot of mediocre and even shitweak employees. they are not in it for the “overall good”, they are there to protect their members. they will sometimes fight for policies that are so injurious to the organziation that in the long run, they threaten EVERYBODY’s jerb

      they also protect the falsely accused and politically expendable in a job that by its nature places us in positions where we must do the politically unpopular, and where doing what is right and just is often doing what is political suicide.

      a too powerful union is bad. no union, or a very weak one is also bad.

      1. Re: Dunphy,

        we’ve had officers unjustly fired,unjustly indicted and it’s our union that helps with the attorney, etc. and ONLY if the union recommends it will the case go to arbitration.

        The problem with unions is not that they exist, but the compulsory nature of the membership (in many cases) and the special legal protections – really, entitlements – that they enjoy from the state, specifically the right to hinder the operation of a business or organization just to obtain an advantage. It is the violation of the non-aggression principle that makes some unions (if not all) the problem and not the solution.

        1. agreed. my understanding is it’s pretty much impossible to opt out. i think there is a religious opt-out exception, but i’m not sure. i have never even heard of anybody opting out

          1. I’m not familiar with public sector union rules (federal labor laws apply differently), but there’s no requirement to join a union in the private sector and if you object, you’re only required to pay an agency fee. An agency fee (sometimes called a fair share fee) is the representation costs percentage of the union dues.

            Now that’s not to say that the union or its members won’t use pressure and intimidation to get to you to join. Also as a non-member you won’t have any voice in bargaining demands, contract votes, union leadership elections, etc.

      2. Who is dunphy? He’s this guy:

        Dunphy (the real one)| 7.16.12 @ 12:48PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

        he’s not a victim.

        he’s a fucking moron who begged to get shot

        again, only a reasonoid funhouse mirror anti-cop bigot could think it’s ok to asnwer a door knock with a drawn gun.

        he made his moronic decision and he paid the price.

        1. I thought he was that one guy who’s a world champion powerlifter who bangs actresses, and whose advice is always desired and cherished. That guy?

      3. we’ve had officers unjustly fired,unjustly indicted

        Occasionally, the double standard breaks down and officers are treated like “civilians”?

    3. but w/o union protection – forget about it

      Because of course no one without Union protection ever beats a false accusation of TEH RACISTS!!11! made by a bigwig.

      Thanks God for teh Union!


      1. Police are frequently oppressed by “the man” and would be reduced into outright slavery if not for their brave collective…is that the line dunphy is pushing?

        1. Who knows. I have a hard time deciphering the ravings of a madman that said a guy who answered the knock on his door at 1:30 am with a gun in hand “was a fucking moron begging to get shot” even when all physical evidence points to the cops lying their asses off.

          Fuck him and his thick blue (unionized) wall.

      2. I am not in a union. I was falsely accused at the office for discriminating against someone with a disability. They made that claim because they thought I was the person who ratted them out for something they did that violated the company’s code of conduct and this person’s modus operandi was to falsely accuse anyone who’d do anything that. It quickly became clear that the charge was a lie.

        She’s gone. I’m not.

        To reiterate, I am not in a union.

        1. Ooh, I like this story. What was her disability?

          1. clearly a midget. (**Arrrg!!! No – PERSON OF SHORT STATURE!!! APOLOGIES!!!)

            Have you no sensitivity?

    4. If your interactions with the public were recorded at all times, you would just have to send the guy a tape and tell him to F off.

      Just saying.

      1. i agree. i am 100% for cops recording their encounters with others, and others recording cops at every opportunity they get. i have recorded cops in downtown seattle on a few occasions. nothing interesting happened.

        the more people recording cops (and vice versa) the better. in the gordon graham case where the cop was falsely accused by the judge he arrested, his tape recording likely saved his job. the judge otoh was fucked since he made a verifiable false complaint of criminal conduct by the officer and ./.. suicide.

        but we are 100% in agreement. record cops and vice versa

        there are obvious exceptions. a rape victim interview is sensitive. they are not going to want to be recorded. stuff like that.

        WA’s law requires two party consent for recording “private conversations”. cops talking to people as a part of official duty is not “private conversation”. at least that’s my opinion, and what the prosecutor i spoke to agreed with.

        i strongly encourage you to record a cop if you see them on a traffic stop or whatever. your tape can uncover wrongdoing and.or protect him false complaints thereof.

        i’ve never been sued. i have sued and won. i know that in cases where officers are sued, the union is very helpful

    5. Of course all of that could have been avoided if your department had mandatory cameras or microphones.

      Take or turn off your camera/microphone and anything the cop says gets automatically thrown out of evidence.

  6. I’m forming a meta-union and will soon be raking in the dues. *I* ain’t no slacker!

    1. Too late. There’s already a meta-union. It’s called “government.”

      1. Top. Men.

        The REAL Meta-Union

  7. The WWF was able to fire Dr. D because he was not a member of a union.

    — MrJM

    1. Just watched “Grosse Point Blank” (again, for the umpteenth time) – love the whole “join the Assassins Union or it’s curtains for you” thing.

      Someone needs to make a movie about a drug manufacturers Guild or something. OH WAIT, THEY’RE CALLED CARTELS. Never mind.

  8. All hail the CLLAAAAWW!!!

    1. Dude, a Dragonlance handle?

      1. Shut your whore mouth before I sic Drizzt Do’Urden on you.

        1. There’s a word that describes this subthread and I can’t quite put my finger on it. I know it starts with G and ends with Y.

          1. Fuck you, you little halfling queer. I’ll sacrifice you to Lloth so fast your head will spin.

            1. Actually, no. I take that back. You’re definitely a goblin. Banjos is probably a halfling.

              1. Oh, now I remember. GAY. That’s the word I couldn’t think of. This subthread is GAY. Actually, it’s gayer than two men engaged in consensual anal intercourse.

          2. Generation Y?

        2. NO one fucks with Drizzt….. except Artemis Entreri

      2. Well as a libertarian, I am contstantly critisized for being evil and heartless yet well versed and educated so… it seemed a proper fit. Plus hourglass eyes. I mean come on; HOURGLASS EYES! How cool is that!?

        1. Yeah, but the one time you got to bang a chick, you had to be told about it later.

          1. Nice!

  9. Before Unions, we labored all day long in perpetual darkness, because the sun never shone. We weren’t paid for our labor – in fact, we paid our corporate overlords for the right to slave in their undeground sugar caves. And we ate bat guano and drank mountain dew, because we were filthy cretins who didn’t know any better until the Government and the Unions said “let there be light” and made us human.

  10. fwiw, and then there is the issue of wages. my wages and benefits are excellent. with longevity pay (totally unrelated to performance… merely time on… a union favorite), educational incentive pay (grad school), and a couple of other add-ons, plus the base hourly, it’s just under (2k) six figures. that’s with no overtime, just base pay. plus, dept. pays 100% of our medical (and the coverage is awesome. i just had surgery 2 weeks ago. total cost to me: $10). lots of other benefits like 60 massage a year, 35 chiro a year, i get to take my police car home (needless to say, saves tons of gas and commute time)

    ironically, in addition to the union, another reason for the great wage./bennies is market competition. agencies compete for officers (laterals) and the agencies with the best wage/benefits, etc. ceterus paribus, get the best officers.

    contrast with where i used to work – hawaii. only ONE pay scale (one union) for the 4 departments. since dept’s didn’t have to compete for officers, wages were very low. plus, the cost of living there is much higher. many officers, myself included, bailed for the mainland. they tried to make officers pay back part of training if they left within so many years, but case law says that is unenforceable illegal contract. hawaii has great people, a wonderful concept of aloha (literally), great surf, etc. etc but at that pay? fuck that.

    1. This is disgusting.

  11. “The union activists were also quick to say that unions built the middle class, that without unions, greedy bosses would lead a “race to the bottom” and pay workers next to nothing.”

    Can someone ask these morons to explain the IT industry? In it there are no Unions. I’ve heard of a few people trying to get one started but frankly programmers and sys admins don’t want the damn rules interfering with their ability to get stuff done and yet it is the one area of employment in the last 60 years where pay growth has proceeded uninterrupted and employers bend over backwards to get people to take jobs with them.

    In otherwords salaries as with the rest of the world are limited by the laws of supply and demand. Any moron can work on an assembly line and so yeah with no union you shouldn’t expect to make a very good salary and if you do have a union artificially inflating that salary then fuck you because you are screwing the rest of us over by forcing us to pay higher prices for the goods and services we buy.

    Don’t want to work in a marginal paying job, then go out and get some fucking skills that people are willing to pay for.

    1. In otherwords salaries as with the rest of the world are limited by the laws of supply and demand.

      Pretty much the point of statist intervention in the economy is an attempt to “repeal” economic laws. Yeah, they really think they can do this.

  12. I see the problems with government worker unions, which actually should not be allowed. But, Stossel is railing against the entire concept of a union here in a very misleading way. Sure, he brings up compulsory union membership for people that want to work in a certain field, and that’s a problem, but then seems to mix that in with the idea that unions ‘drag the poor businessman down’ and prevent innovation. So what? If it does actually help them to raise their wages and benefits, then why should a union member feel bad about it? Should the union worker sacrifice for the greater good, Mr Stossel? What would your heroine say about that?

    1. If your company isn’t innovating and is overpaying its fungible drones, then it is dying. See Stossel’s discussion of the UAW’s impact on American auto manufacturing.

      1. If a person is a “fungible drone” then it’s in their best interest to not be so “fungible.” Are you saying they should sacrifice for the greater good?

        1. I’m saying that if they insist on being overpaid for the job they do, they will soon discover just how fungible they are, so it is not in their own best interest to force their employer to overpay them.

    2. setting aside the issue of whether it’s good policy to not allow public (government worker) unions…

      under what authoritah could they be banned? especially in a post citizen’s united environment?

      i admit i honestly don’t know what to think about the “compulsory” (to whatever extent it IS compulsory. this is not an area of law i am versed in) aspects of union membership. i’d love to read some stuff from somebody knowledgeable on this topic. maybe I’ll bring it up at

      the practical reality is that , for example in my field, there are a great # of benefits and protections an officer gets, and those exist because of union action. and note also that while on probation, an officer does not have union protection. they can be (and often are) fired at will

      again, if somebody is knowledgeable here, i would love to know about “compulsory” union membership etc. such as we see in PD’s

      1. “this is not an area of law i am versed in”

        I get that impression a lot from police officers.

      2. The problem is not compulsory membership, the problem is coercive legislation that unions usually get that provide them with privileges like the nobility had in the middle ages

      3. under what authoritah could they be banned? especially in a post citizen’s united environment?

        It’s easy. A law that says if you work for the government you can’t have a union.

        the practical reality is that , for example in my field, there are a great # of benefits and protections an officer gets, and those exist because of union action.

        At the expense of the taxpayer, who is forced to pay higher taxes because of the vicious circle of forced payments funneled into campaign contributions for politicians who in return raise wages and benefits.

        1. “It’s easy. A law that says if you work for the government you can’t have a union.

          Actually such a law would be a violation of the 4th amendment.

          What you could however do is pass a law preventing the government from recognizing said union or negotiating with it.

          Basically the government could restrain itself from ever engaging in collective bargaining but it could not prevent it’s employees from having any unrecognized organization they liked.

          1. You sure about the 4th amendment? Maybe you think it would be a violation of the 1st amendment? I don’t see how it would be a violation of any amendment.

            I see what you’re getting at, though. Ok, you work for the government, you can be in any club you want, but the government doesn’t have to do anything with respect to that club and shouldn’t when it comes to bargaining over employee salaries. And basically, all salaries, etc. would need to be set by legislative statute.

            1. The government can make employment conditional on not being an active member of a club.

              No right is violated because no right to government employment exists.

      4. Compulsory membership refers to the idea of a “Union Shop” that exists in non right to work states where once a Union gets it’s foot in the door the first thing they do is force the employer to agree that all employees must be union members as a condition of employment

  13. Amazing. I recently had a conv. with a Union guy and he said the same thing about how there would be no middle class without unions and no vacations, etc.
    There must be a handbook or something for them.

    1. They get literature in the mail and they go to meetings. It’s like church.

  14. At a union rally, I asked union workers if it bothered them that slackers are paid as much as good workers. The activists actually said, “There is no slacker,”

    It’s at this point that I would have asked them how it is that they can afford to skip out on work (assuming this rally was in the middle of a workday) to attend a union rally.

    1. that’s such a load of crap it makes me want to fucking hurl. unions PROTECT THE LAZY. no ifs, and’s or but’s about it. other aspects of govt. and civil service do as well, but as a union member, i’m the first to admit – we have PLENTY of slackers.

      if you want people to work hard(er), you incentivize hard work. at least when it comes to wages/benefits, the system in place will discincentivize hard work

      cop (A)
      a cop who does the bare minimum –

      goes to their calls.

      makes arrests only when mandatory (which is to say certain domestic crimes, some felonies and most warrants)

      turns in their paperwork

      and that is literally ALL they do during their shift

      gets the exact same pay, benefits, etc. as a cop who

      cop (B)

      goes to calls

      spends time between calls developing community relationships – storeowners, businesspeople, street people etc. to open up lines of communication in the community

      who increases visible police presence, especially at locations like school bus stops (parents love this), traffic complaint zones etc.

      who keeps an eye out for in progress stuff, like DUI’s etc and where seen – investigates

      1. who spends some of his time between calls reviewing reports in his district (on his laptop) and trying to find patterns and speaks to his CI’s etc. to see who knows what (good street cops help solve a LOT of burgs this way. basic plodding persistent police work. you want to know about criminal activity, you gotta have good rapport with the criminals. they will tell you)

        who keeps up to date on LED’s, SLIP etc. cases such that he can make better decisions vis a vis current case law

        who maintains high levels of physical fitness mostly on his off duty time (we have two officers right now who are doing well in MMA competitions)

        and who, when he writes his reports, etc. takes the extra effort to do more than just be a “report taker” and does some probing investigation to help spark some early leads…

        there is little incentive to be cop (B). cop b opens himself up to more use of force complaints, civil liability, and all sorts of other stuff (cop a who ONLY makes arrests when madnated and doesn’t on-view DUIs etc. has less chances of having to deal with some resisting assaultive fuckmunch and thus having to use force that will be investigated, etc.)

        1. the pay will be exactly the same.

          i work with hardcore A’s and hardcore B’s. they are both out there. B’s are B’s because of personal pride, integrity, and commitment. from a pay, benefits etc. angle they aren’t getting ANYthing extra for what they do . their satisfaction has to come from those people they go out of their way to help, the respect they have on the street- the cred with the crooks, and the respect from the businessmen etc.

      2. If this is a multiple choice test, I (and I suspect the overwhelming majority of the posters here) choose Officer A over Officer B any day of the week. He’s less of a threat to “manufacture” a crime out of thin air or be a dick because he’s got a badge and a gun.

      3. I prefer cop “A” actually. This way I could walk down the street without being asked for my papers.

        1. i am certain many here would prefer a cop A

          i want cop B because he is helping catch bad guys, when i get in a foot pursuit, or some guy is fighting with me, he is able to help me out, he is helping crime victims by getting these offenders off the street

          it is amazing how prolific these career guys are. like literally calls for service (burgs, auto thefts, prowls, etc) in a district can go down 1/3 to 2/3 even just based on ONE arrest.

          i know many people (falsely imo) conflate valid terry stops etc. with “papers please’ and stuff like that. i think that’s silly, but i respect that many people here would prefer cop A.

          consider that where cop A thrives, WAY more criminals get away with committing crimes, way more victims are unable to get justice for their loss, etc. also, ceteris paribus, (and fbi LEJ studies confirm this), officers who are less physically fit are more likely to use higher levels of force on average, have more uses of deadly force, etc.

  15. Union: group of people who push for coercive regulations to benefit their members at the expense of everybody else

    Sure unions have the right to exist, but without coercive regulations. And without coercive regulations unions would have no benefit for their members.

    1. It depends. A union could provide employers with the best damned ditch diggers (or whatever) you can find anywhere and demand higher pay. The best damned ditch digger would be incentivized to join the union because of the higher pay and maybe some kind of benefits package or employment services (recruitment and such). The employer gets the best damned ditch digging he can get at a reasonable price and could contract with the union so as to not worry (as much) about cost overruns, etc.

      1. I?ve never seen anything like that in my life. I wouldnt have a problem with that as long as they dont impose any coercive restriction on the employer. The employer should be allowed to terminate the employment at will, could be allowed by law to hire people from outside the union, they wouldn be allowed to make piket lines, and wouldnt be bailed out if their employer goes bankrupt for paying above the market wages and benefits.

  16. By giving their demands the ruling party play the election card.

  17. I have a teacher, just last week, tell me that unions were a great thing. Yesterday, he told us that Henry Ford created a lot of jobs by cutting the work day, etc, etc. Now, I can argue that Ford did it without unions.

    Thank you very much.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.