The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one.  Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time.  I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him.  It is a sad situation.

The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning.  The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally.  But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants.  Whose fault is the current situation?  The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in.  Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed.  Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days.  True, but it would have saved a lot for the company.  It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand.  The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality.  Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker.  Both have faults within and outside the company.  Then the current financial crisis hit.  Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.

I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be.  You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor.  If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct.  But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled.  Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies.  Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund.  Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies.  When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.

Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar.  I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will.  I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.

When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements?  If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip.  If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?

Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited.  I need a researcher to help with this stuff.  Perhaps there is a government grant?