From Capitalism to Socialism at GM and Chryslar

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2009/db20090428_774578.htm
I will talk about this article which i kind of found interesting. In a discussion with an americal student i got to know about the strong Unions and their high perks in US. I was told that reforms in US are not easy as labour unions have a very strong say given their unity. It was indeed interesting to read about it in Business Week today. So, now these firms want the Unions to be a part of management and understand the issues. When you cant thrust the cost savings, you have to make people sit on your chair and see the issues infront. Is it a good way or are these firms repeating the failures of UA. I think it is a good strategy. When everything else fails and when you know that things have to drive from all dorections, increase the stakes, define it well and guide it well. Idea is to increase the stake and tranparency and let people who can impact the bottom line own it for sometime, but this should not let the higher management lose hold on the strategy and long term focus. UA failed for the loss of hold on vision. Things have to be driven, its just that you make the people who get impacted sit on driving seat to understand the core of the issue. With the high compensation and benefits that Unions have won for themselves in years, management in US had lesser in terms of cost cutting in their hands.
Well, indeed the most interesting question for some of the economists is- Capitalism or Socialism?? Socialism is a poor man's way of securing life, capitlaism is a progressive mindset. They both are a part of every economy, which is right or which is wrong depends on the scenario. May be when things fail completely socialism ensures food for all, when times are good, capitalism ensures exploitation of opportunities. All the Best Biggies!! You are upto something and that probably was the last resort you had.