Thoughts from the Bernie Union thread. ----- The current Union model is broken. It is an adversarial model where the Host (Corporation) and Workers interests (Union Members) are not aligned and it becomes a battle of sharing gains only thru leverage almost always at odds with the long term viability and strength of the company. It promotes short term interests only often at the expense and competitiveness of the Corporation which the workers should have as much incentive to see do well as the Owners and Community do. Currently a Union is incentivized to boost membership numbers regardless of cost to the employer, and regardless to the impact on competitiveness and even if they cause such bloat that people have little or no work to do. They will still push for 'more', ever more, regardless. Similarly many owners short term focus on profits at the expense of long term competitiveness and viability contributes just as much to the problem often causing a lose/lose situation. It does not have to be that way. I, a sherdogger, can fix the Union model to the benefit of both the corporation and the employee. I am the chosen one. First off lets recognize and agree that the long term viability and profitability is critical to the company staying in business which is a benefit to all its stakeholders, (shareholders, employees, community). So here is the fix. The Union model gets changed to a direct 'Profit and Benefits Share' model where they get X% of the corporate profits divided up amongst the membership. Company makes any profit they automatically get X% to direct as they want to allocate to expanding benefits and paying out bonuses. So now suddenly profits = good, increasing profits = better, maximizing profits = great. Employees and Owners and Community all agree. Interests aligned. Further more you break that down by incentivize each unit in the company to drive towards maximizing profits, by tying their specific share of that bonus to benchmark productivity goals. Every industry has them and they set what is an efficient department, average department, or under performing department compared to the peer companies. If you do not do that one department may choose to bloat and coast at the expense of the others being efficient. You have a department that wants to bloat up with extra employees so each person can do less work, that would raise the cost side of their ledger, and reduce their per person profit share. If they try to cut man power simply to horde more money for less people, that would impact the productivity side of the ledger. Both would diminish their share of the profit share and push them to a well balanced work force, optimized to maximum output with the required number of people, but no more. Investments in technology, innovation and other best practices now become incentivized for all. Every Union member would be happy because, lets be real, they don't care about 'more bodies', what they care about is 'maximizing their personal remuneration' and this does that. Owners would be happy as they know they have a motivated work force always pushing to optimize the Labour V Productivity issue. And the last stakeholder, the community would be happy as this is the best way to ensure long term viability of the corporation as an employer in the area. The above would have been the best long term way to protect the viability of the US auto market, and prevent its collapse. There you have it sherbro's I have given a blueprint to fix the Union V Owner problem and to create a true kumbaya moment for all and you can all now heap praise on me for this bullet proof easy solution that I know has been mirrored in certain jurisdictions but somehow tends to evade the bulk of industry. Now try to punch a hole in the above, if you dare.