As one who has negotiated regional labor agreements on both the side of management and labor in the construction industry, I've been following this situation with a mild curiosity. I've known it makes sense on some levels, but I wondered what the real issues were.

And on CBS tonight one of the analysts had what seems to me is the perfect rationale. He said, and I don't remember his name, that the Union is having to show that it is working for, fighting for the members even as they prepare behind the scenes to make a major, major concession.

The fellow postulates the Union will take over responsibility for health care of retirees from GM. That is a crushing burden, and not one foreign carmakers carry. That will be an unpopular move. I don't know if retirees can vote in UAW elections, they could in the Union for which I worked.

(There are basically two types of unions, industrial and craft. The UAW is an industrial union, wherein people generally work for only one employer. In construction the burden of healthcare for retirees generally came from the Union. I had a farseeing boss who could see writing on the wall and shifted the burden to the individual retiree. We negotiated an additional sum to be paid to the retirement trust equal to the cost of the best possible supplemental policy available for that worker and then made it his/her responsibility. If we hadn't done that, both employers and the Union would have been in a real bind.)

So, we may see a strike deliberately called to cover some Union officer's butts as they take an unpopular step forced upon them by non-union and third-world companies.

Arf