Trade unions help workers demand better work treatment and welfare, which is an indisputable thing in itself. Workers also have the right to enjoy a better life, which is correct!

But the problem is that American trade unions have divorced from the essence of trade unions and become similar to gangs.

In the early days of the establishment of the trade union, the trade union was good. They helped workers get rid of the working system of six days a week and 12 hours a day. Help them get the minimum wage, that is, the standard hourly wage shall not be lower than the local standard living standard.

It also allows enterprises to prohibit discrimination against any workers, including colored people, which is a great credit.

The image description is to help all the high-tech employees of the so-called high-tech companies get rid of 996 and return them to the normal era of 955.

The way for the trade union to win is to strike.

But gradually, the unions found that factories were so afraid of strikes that they were willing to pay more amazing benefits.

For example, as long as the trade union leader tries to stop the strike or directly put out the next strike, the trade union leader can own an apartment in New York, where more than a dozen beautiful blondes live.

Or directly reap a large amount of money, equivalent to the money made by hundreds of workers for a lifetime. These things make all trade union leaders degenerate instantly. In order to maintain their position, they even gradually become gangsters.

In 1957, all the big gang leaders in the United States met in New York. Among the 56 people present, 22 were union leaders. Isn't it very funny?

Is it just the union leaders that are so bad?

No, many workers are also bad. Generally speaking, people who join trade unions have to pay 5% of their income as membership fees.

But from then on, they can start "carefree" work and life.

After becoming a trade union member, it is equivalent to having an iron rice bowl. Even if it should be eliminated, enterprises dare not fire it.

According to the pictures actually taken in the internal documentary, those workers who joined the trade union were at work.

"Every day is to play crossword puzzles"

"Look at the video tape brought by your colleagues, or read the newspaper, or just sit."

"Some people even come to the office directly with the work of another company!"

But even in this way, these workers can still get all their wages and benefits. In fact, they have become parasites in the factory.

If a worker can make profits for the enterprise, they should get corresponding remuneration and benefits.

But if they do not create profits for the enterprise, but still enjoy all the benefits and salaries, is that equivalent to sucking the blood of other hard-working workers?

The most terrible thing is that when many workers first entered the factory, they were very pure and hardworking, and were very willing to work hard for the company.

But when they see that some people don't need to pay any hard work, even if they lie down for a day, they earn the same or even more.

These workers either left angrily or joined the trade union if they couldn't fight. Like those workers, they joined the trade union and lived a good life lying down to work.

A few years later, a professional reporter interviewed and calculated, and finally came to the conclusion that those workers with high benefits but not working, virtually increased the cost of each car by $1200.

In 2007, the average annual salary of workers in general motors was 141000, that of Ford was 146000 and that of Chrysler was 151000. The average annual salary of workers in these three major automobile companies exceeded 140000 US dollars, while the average annual salary of American university professors in the same period was 96000 US dollars.

In order to keep members' high wages, benefits and jobs, the Auto Union does not allow American auto companies to reduce workers' benefits and allow them to lay off workers.

Even the business restructuring or the introduction of new technologies carried out by various enterprises to improve efficiency and reduce costs are prohibited by trade unions.

Far from it, take the near one. Ford originally planned to introduce a set of new technology assembly line. This assembly line can improve work efficiency by more than 80%, but only 60% of the original workers are needed.

This obviously helps the company to increase profits, but when Ford announced that it would launch the new production line, the trade union immediately organized all employees to go on strike. The reason is that if the work efficiency is increased by 80%, but the workers only need 60%, then in the end, 80% of the workers will be unemployed (I don't know how to calculate this 80%)?

Finally, Ford was forced to give up the introduction of this production line.

The same is true for electric vehicle technology, because electric vehicles are simpler and require fewer mechanical parts. If electric vehicles are launched, about 40% of employees can be reduced.

Then it was banned by the strike of the trade union. American car companies do not support electric vehicles. It was not because the leaders were too stupid, but because the trade union was too bad

Finally, there are layoffs. According to the contract signed between the labor union and GM, Ford and Chrysler, if the enterprise has to lay off staff because of serious losses, the unemployed workers can also get 95% of the salary, the benefits remain unchanged and there is no time limit. Therefore, the work that could have been completed by one person needed several people to do in the Detroit factory at that time, which was extremely inefficient.

From this point of view, which enterprise dares to lay off employees unless it completely goes bankrupt... But it can't go bankrupt. Don't you see that the trade unions are demonstrating and asking enterprises to prohibit bankruptcy?

Of course, later, these trade unions and workers also paid their own price. In history, Chrysler went bankrupt directly and was acquired by Italy's Fiat Group.

As a result, Fiat simply closed all its factories in the United States, and the relevant technologies and production lines were either resold or moved back to Italy.

If the enterprise changes its owner, naturally all the agreements signed with the trade union will not count. Even if they count, Fiat will not pay. Fools will pay. I'm not afraid of your strike!

In addition, although Ford and General Motors did not go bankrupt and restructure, they also ruthlessly closed factories and eliminated workers. They didn't care how they went on strike. Anyway, they were almost shut down. These workers went on strike. They just needed to leave a group of workers who didn't participate in the strike.

As a result, with the end of the financial crisis, nearly 3 million workers in the three auto companies were collectively unemployed. After that, these workers could hardly find a job and could only live on old money or government food subsidies. Finally, the place where they gathered became a famous rust belt, paving the way for the rise of a great leader in the future.

As for trade unions, their total number of members has dropped from 5 million at the peak to less than 300000, because when any enterprise recruits, it will immediately cancel the work contract as soon as it hears that the other party is a member of a trade union, without any hesitation.

Although the trade union finally gave up, it was an outcome of losing both sides. The workers had no job and had to eat and die. The enterprise has lost the market and its own life.

GM has also changed from the first in the world to the egg now. It barely survived by selling almost all the car brands in its hands.

This is a double lose outcome.