Private sector unions have their place, and I strongly advocate for them. However, I agree that a disconnect exists today in the private sector unions that needs to be properly addressed at the leadership level. Hoffa understood this and treated management more like part of the team, unless and until he deemed management to be acting completely out-of-line and unfairly, which he responded to appropriately. The attitude prevalent in most private sector unions today pits the workers against management and vice-versa. And Obama playing class warfare doesn't help the situation any either. It's this attitude coupled with poor leadership that is facilitating the downfall of the UAW an private sector unions in general. What I can't figure out for the life of me is why the UAW supported both NAFTA and the proposed South Korean FTA. Didn't they learn anything from NAFTA? And yet the membership continues to vote for and support current leadership.

Instead of spending money supporting political causes, the UAW and other private-sector unions would be better off using their member's dues on purchasing stock in the companies that their workers have a vested interest in and gaining some seats on the board. Why they haven't figured this one out yet is also beyond my comprehension.

Sorry Mr. Hoffa, but I usually agree with you but on this, I must strongly disagree. unions of all kinds have become bully pulpits that have cost thousands their jobs, put once great American companies out of business, and are merely a political arm of the liberal, democratic party.

Unionism is in the purest sense, un-American, as it promotes "socialistic" themes. Today's union does nothing for an employee other than protect bad employees. The marketwill dictate wages and benefits. If you don't offer enough, you will not get quality workers to make products or provide services. Market should always be the determining factor of a vaiable business.

The number one reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs isn't greedy rich owners, but unions that jack up the cost of products and services beyond what the consumer will pay as long as there are cheaper alternatives of the same quality. To blame corporate boards and executives is ludicrous. Executives usually work off a base salary and stock options. Those stock options are what create the wealth but the stock price is also what measures the success of the executive and incentivizes him/her to perform at the top of their game in order to become one of those rich executives.

But couldn't private sector unions be considered market participants themselves? Look at the way they used to cannibalize each other back in the heyday of the labor movement just to increase their membership ranks, much like a larger business buys out a smaller competitor to gain market share in specific segments. Perhaps they are more capitalistic in nature than you presume. They identify a demand, labor, organize it, and provide the supply to businesses at negotiated terms in exchange for dues (compensation), albeit in a 'non-profit' fashion. That sounds pretty capitalistic to me.

If they are so serious in their motives though, I don't know why they don't press for co-operative ownership in the areas in which they have influence and then compete with the quasi-cooperative in the free market for market share.

Free market economics work great in a system wherein everyone plays by a similar set of rules. However, when you have outliers that don't play those rules, such as Mexico, China, India, African Nations, etc., but allow them to play in the system regardless, the doctrines of minimizing costs to maximize profits dictate re-locating your business to nations where you're able to exploit labor, regulations, etc. And unfortunately, we're too big of country to expect that we can operate with a specialized economy such as smaller nations like Switzerland are able to do. We need a strong industrial/manufacturing base, but it shouldn't be a race to the bottom to have one.

Not really as they have two things that are not capitalistic and that is; they eliminate competition by placing restrictions in their contracts that one must be a union member to work at that particular company. 2. The whole idea of capitalism is profit, and unions, despite it being in their best interests, do not worry about the company's bottomline.

I do agree with you on trade agreements and unless a country is inline with free market and free trade, under the same rules that govern us, there should not be a trade agreement. Further, if there is a deficit, than there should be in the agreement a way that the deficit is eliminated and a time table, along with harsh sanctions for violation. Then they must be enforced.

It seems we forgot about enforcement with many of these agreements.

LOL - It was a jobs rally. If everyone had jobs, nobody would have been there.

It was a bipartisan panel, and, both sides answered the questions.

I thanked Jim Ladwig (R) for his help in working on job creation in Racine County.
To think this was just a protest against the Republicans really shows an element of being very out of touch.

Milwaukee Ironworkers - If you read the 'editor's note' concerning this story, you'd realize that it was covered in two separate parts. This part had to do with the protestors who were outside the summit, which the story indicates were against Republicans and the conservative agenda. Ergo, the comments being posted here.

The second part of the story concerned what actually happened inside the summit and can be found here - http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/not-much-business-beyond-taxes-at-economic-forum. As you can see, there is a separate comment board for that part of the story.