Brownie;
Not going to make a big deal out of this, since I think I've pretty well defined my position. But I feel I have to comment on one of your statements; i.e. - "I do find it strange that no one has mentioned the strong Unions that run Europe"
Having spent some time in Europe, working with its unions and union members, and having as a close friend a works council member/director (employee-elected ombudsman) at a German Ver.Di organized company (Ver.Di is the "super union" - much larger than the Teamsters - that also represents UPS workers in Germany), I don't find it "strange" that "no one had mentioned strong Unions that run Europe" at all....simply because they DON'T "run Europe", nor do they really try to.
Despite the fact that union membership has undertaken the same slide in industrialized Europe as it has here, unions function differently over there than they do here. First off, they try to be a POSITIVE force for the economy, instead of concentrating on the negative. By that I mean that (1) they're much more collegial....they'll work with management well BEFORE the crisis stage to do what it takes to nurture the business; none of this "wait 'till the last minute and MAYBE we'll take a concession" stuff that's so prevalent here in the U.S. (2) over there they understand that their very existence depends on the success of the companies that they've organized, and even when they're not in complete agreement with those companies, they don't go so far off-the-wall as to disparage and/or try to destroy those companies' businesses...as compared to here, where it seems a union can't bad-mouth, boycott, or whatever the companies they depend on enough), and (3) unions over there actually DO things to increase/maintain their members productivity and labor "value". For example, they have training and apprentice programs ("yes", even for lowly "truck drivers") which THEY organize and THEY pay for which prospective and current members have to participate in if they want to keep their jobs. They (the UNIONS, mind you!) also DISCIPLINE their employees if they don't maintain both quality and production standards.
Can you see the Teamsters doing that over here? Can you visualize the Teamsters going to their employer's board and saying "Heh, this could be done more efficiently and with LESS labor this way; let's try it". Or can you see the Teamsters setting up (and paying for) a mock hub in which even unloaders are trained in the proper methods, etc? Or can you imagine a Teamster steward or business agent suspending a worker because he wasn't meeting the company's production standards? Personally, I can't....but European unions function that way. They OFFER something!
That's where I kinda' get off on your "At what point and to what level do the CEO's and management take some blame" question. Hell, in this country, when HAVEN'T they "taken the blame"? And just when HAS organized labor "taken the blame"....or at least some responsibility??
Unfortunately, in the end, far too many of the unions' [former] members have had to pay the penalty for their union's shrugging-off of its responsiblity; i.e. - they lost their employment (that's something which is particularly true for the Teamsters, BTW)
In the end, a company's management is solely responsible to those that employ THEM; i.e. - the owners (shareholders, whatever) of the company. That responsibility may be restricted somewhat by legal obligations, but never denied completely; eventually they HAVE to make a profit. Now that's a heck of responsibility....especially when you got entities - specifically, in this country, unions - that seem to have it as their goal to see that companies DON'T make a profit. Given that, can't one understand why management - and those that employ THEM, namely the shareholders! - would want to seek a climate where the labor was willing to accept some of that responsibility itself...and APPRECIATE what the management/shareholders are bringing to the table?
Whenever we discuss this topic, my German ombudsman friend always tells me how appalled he is by the short-sightedness of American organized labor. He's attended meetings with the Teamsters (they're now associated with Ver.Di now, although Ver.Di is much the larger of the two entities), and can't believe how antagonistic they are toward their employers; from his perspective, it seems that American union are bound and determined to commit suicide.
Going forward, in answer to your question as to "How do you outsource UPS front line jobs? Drivers, loaders, and sorters?"...well, you do it the same way that it's been done for over 30 years now". Don't you think that we have driver, loaders, sorters, etc. working overseas? And isn't "overseas" a rather significant - and growing! - aspect of the company's operations today? Especially in terms of "profit"? Well, that's one way to "outsource".
Another is by simply reflecting the economy at large; i.e. - if this country can't cut it economically , then wealth flees overseas. Less wealth here means less need for domestic small package transport. Less need for small package transport means less need for domestic drivers, sorters, loaders, etc. Meanwhile, in the "booming" economies, there IS a need for driver, sorters, loaders, and such. Think it can't happen? Hell, it HAS happened and IS happening today!
Lastly, in response to your question of...
"Can you tell me as a reasonable person you feel more union people are at their jobs because they think they will get a "free lunch"?"
I'd have to answer (and, again, remember my previous UPS worker exclusion) "yes, most definitely!" Look at this ongoing UAW thing, for example. ..and specifically at the "job bank" item you brought up. Do you think that those that have been inhabiting those "job banks" have been intent on finding other employment so they WOULDN'T have to be parasites on the companies that once employed them and/or society in general? And do the unions "design the cars? Damn right they do...if only because their demands make only the production of certain high-margin vehicles possible! Do you think American autoworkers would have stuck to "large" vehicle sales so long UNLESS they were unable to hire a workforce that could COMPETIVELY produce the smaller models that cost almost as much to make - but sold for far less? REALLY!?
Lastly, regarding your comment of...
"I don't think comparing US Auto Co s to China's Auto makers makes any sense. Clearly, as said in one of the last posts, you wouldn't find the millions of workers to slave away at the plant for little money and few benefits as you will in China"
...remember, I was speaking of automotive SALES in China; NOT production. I.e. - the despised "benefits" of the Chinese worker are such that, today, his country LEADS the U.S. in the number of vehicles SOLD in country!
Seems to me that would indicate that, perhaps, the Chinese worker - by virtue of his willingness to compete - isn't quite that bad off after all....and his position is improving, while that of the American organized worker is on its way down. After all, the Chinese worker has a job (although given the world-wide recession, he's likely to be suffering some unemployment effects now as well). By his willingness to compete and EARN his way, HIS economic prospects are growing. And, in demonstration of those prospects, HIS country now leads the world in the consumption (NOT production, but CONSUMPTION!) of automobiles. These are the fruits of competitiveness...something that far too many "organized" workers (and, again, I'm primarily excluding those at UPS) don't understand.
All that said, in contrast to my opening statement, it seems I DID "make a big deal out of it". Sorry! BTW, note that I just took exception with the things you said with which I had disagreement with; hope you understand that there was much in your post that I AGREED with...but where's the fun in saying "me too"?
.
, I just am not into writing term paper responses 
. I am going to stick to pithy comments from now on 
!
