The Wrong Reason To Strike

The environment has changed, but the labor relations remain much as they were in 1950. To their credit, both sides have reportedly agreed to cap GM's financial obligation for retiree health care by shifting that responsibility to the union, along with billions of dollars in cash and a fixed annual contribution by the company. But given the magnitude of its legacy costs, and the real threat of a bankruptcy, you'd think GM's workers would also be open to taking control of their pension assets and liabilities, rather than fighting the switch toward 401(k) plans.

The battle over job security is also emblematic.

With more than a quarter of GM's 73,000 unionized workers set to retire in the next few years, any job reductions that result from falling sales or increased productivity should be able to be handled through attrition. But the union is also worried that this might not be the case if the company decides to outsource entire functions.

By now, it should be apparent that the wrong way to handle this legitimate concern is to prohibit all layoffs, plant closures or outsourcing. The right way would be to leave those out of the labor contract but give workers a real voice in those decisions and a financial stake in making the right ones.

Getting there would be hard. It would require not only new mechanisms and procedures, but a much higher degree of trust and respect.

But it would be a more hopeful sign if this strike were about hammering out a new model for labor-management relations rather than merely preserving job guarantees that no company can -- or should -- provide.

Steven Pearlstein will host a Web discussion today at 11 a.m. athttp://washingtonpost.com.