Missing the forest for the trees...

A parable:

A man with less-than-perfect credit wants to purchase a new car to replace his current vehicle which is outdated and suffers from numerous mechanical problems. He calls and visits various banks and finds out that only one bank is willing to approve a loan for the amount he needs.

Upon visiting the bank, the man is shown a check made out in his name for the amount he requested. The loan officer tells him that once he agrees to a few specific conditions, the check will be signed and handed over. One of the conditions is that the man carry full comprehensive insurance on the new vehicle. Due to his poor credit, the bank requires him to have a much lower deductible than he would normally prefer, which would result in a slightly higher (but still affordable) premium.

The man is indignant and refuses to agree to the conditions. The loan officer reminds him that if he does not agree, the bank will not issue the loan and the man will not be able to purchase the vehicle. The man angrily leaves the bank without agreement, and therefore without the check.

The next day, his failing vehicle breaks down. He now has no choice but to purchase a new car. He goes back to the bank, and the loan officer tells him that the bank will still be happy to loan him the funds, but now the interest rate has tripled, the deductible requirements are even lower, and the bank gets to control how and where he drives the car.

If only he had accepted the original terms...

Let me pose this question to the UAW leadership.

Which is worse for your members, wage concessions or bankruptcy?