John, the comment about newspapers is beneath you. The newspaper unions aren't putting them out of business, computers and the internet are. You vilify unions for doing all they can to maintain such dirty words as pensions and health insurance. Only in this country do we assign blame downward in this way. I never hear conservatives going after the golden parachutes and obscene compensation packages of American CEO's, yet if a union goes on strike against a profitable company that is attempting to cut wages and benefits, right away it is "those greedy unions". Since when did health insurance and pensions become bad words? And why do you allow the use of code words for them, such as "legacy costs"?

I am sorry to hear about your Father, and I understand your animus. But your story is a demagogic attempt to paint the union movement in a bad light based on one story, albeit a personal one. For every one of those stories you come up with, after 30 years of organizing I can give you a hundred that show how the union helped workers, saved jobs, allowed them to retire with dignity, and made safer, more productive workplaces.

And if you come to Detroit and poll the worker/victims of the newspaper strike, you will find they overwhelmingly felt that they had no choice. I would not say they are happy, or that they would like to do it again, but they knew that they were forced to take action and stayed with their convictions. And btw, the company that forced that strike was very profitable and wasn't forcing the strike to stay in business. They simply wanted to increase their profitability not based on their management/marketing abilities, but on the backs of their workers. And the CEO got a bonus for breaking them down.

Mick