There's no question that the UAW should "share the pain" by reducing its hourly wages, reducing benefits or making members pay for them, and reducing or eliminating some of the "cushiest" pension benefits among American hourly workers. But how do you make them do that?

In a country which runs by the rule of law there really isn't anyone, including a bankruptcy referee or even the U.S. Congress that can force the UAW to modify its labor contract. In bankruptcy, even the referee cannot unilaterally abrogate union contracts (or any contract, for that matter). The bankrupt company can state its intention to abrogate a union contract, but the bankruptcy referee must approve that step. The company would have to prove the need to take such a step and the union could defend against the proposal. The union could and almost certainly would litigate what they feel would be an improper abrogation of their contract.

Typically the terms of the union contract are a subject for negotiation within the creditor's committee of the bankrupt company. The union might be asked to modify its contract in exchange for a secured creditor forgiving all or part of his debt, or in exchange for the modification of the contracts between the company and any of its creditors. All those negotiations are then reflected in a "plan of reorganization" which must be submitted to the bankruptcy referee for approval. If the committee doesn't negotiate sufficient reductions in costs or forgiveness of debt for the referee to clearly see that the bankrupt company can emerge from bankruptcy and survive, he will not approve it.

So, in this case the UAW is simply using its negotiating skill and experience to achieve it's objectives--not to "give back"any wages or benefits which they won in negotiations over the years. The oft-asked question of whether a job with lower wages is better than no job at all is moot because the UAW believes that there is almost no risk that the government will stop funding the car companies, forcing them into liquidation, and eliminating all the union jobs.

But that raises another interesting question...if the government acts as the UAW believes it will and continues to fund the negative cash flows of the car companies, either in or out of bankruptcy, how will the rest of the American public feel when they find out how the UAW is simply refusing to negotiate the obviously needed wage and benefit reductions in good faith. How will those that are out of work, or working with much lower wages than UAW workers, or having no health insurance when the UAW continues to have free and extensive coverage, or working with no retirement plan at all when retired UAW workers actually get more in retirement benefits than many other workers do working full-time?

When the press starts beating on that drum, the pressure will really begin to build on Congress to re-think continued funding of the car companies. Then the question will re-emerge on whether the UAW will actually begin to "give a little" if the threat of liquidation becomes real enough.

But there is no one in this country that can unilaterally abrogate the UAW's labor contracts or even force the union to negotiate in good faith. It's just that the UAW is smarter and more experienced in these situations than those of us that are paying for their inflated wages and benefits.