(picking your post, Brendan, just because it fits here better, but this is really a general response)

 . . . .they aren't responsible for the contribution of these mistakes to the current problems facing the companies.

OK, so, are you saying that unions only function well when the companies are excellently run?   In other words, the UAW cannot help the workers now, because the UAW is powerless and unaccountable for management decisions?  if I were an auto worker, I would wonder what my union was good for, then.   Would ten years of a higher-salary job be better for me than 20 or 30 at a slightly lower?  Would it be better to take my chances with the employer's actions with or without the union being there "for me"?

I think Skymutt's list is a great start at objectively and unemotionally looking at the UAW and whether or not, in the decades of its existence, it has actually helped or hurt the employees it claims to represent. 

An argument can be made that it did indeed help the current crop of workers make relatively higher salaries and secure better benefits.   However, if it has contributed in any way to the current crisis these companies are experiencing, then is has also hurt the current workers.   

I'm not saying the UAW is entirely to blame.   But they are not entirely blameless, either. 

And yes, when the money is not there (unlike the government, which seems to think it has an inexhaustible supply) "unfair" decisions do have to be made to keep a company functioning in a changing environment.    If I can't make payroll (whether due to causes within or outside my control), no matter how "unfair" it is, I have to fire my employees, regardless of how hard they worked, or how good they are, or whatever.

The UAW has offered and continues to offer concessions to help the automakers control expenses, including limiting future benefits. You seem to read this as the UAW screwing over young and future members, but isn't that the only ethical (and maybe even legal) option available for the UAW?

Not at all.  A "concession" is precisely a "renege" on a previous "promise", if you want to look at it that way.   Unions can and do make concessions regarding retiree benefits and older workers all the time.  It is no more ethical to screw young and future workers at the expense of older workers as it would be to screw older workers and retirees at the expense of future workers.  In my view, the most ethical way of dealing with tough times like this is to try to spread the pain equally over all union members.  And then when times get better (as they hopefully will) and the union can negotiate a more favorable contract, everybody should benefit. 

If I was in a union, I would not want my union protecting my wages and benefits at the expense of future workers.  That does not appeal to my sense of fairness, even given that the new workers would "know what they are getting into".  If a unions can't negotiate advantages for labor that can be sustained for the next generation, then that union is useless and should dissolve itself.  If a union is going to protect some workers wages and benefits and not others, then it shouldn't be allowed to charge dues from the workers it is not serving.

Many of your questions seem to me to dodge the issue of legacy costs, which in a way reflect past success of these companies, success that led to profits that have already been banked by stockholders and management but were supposed to be partially diverted to cover retirees.

It's just the opposite-- I'm saying that in this crisis the union needs to put these legacy costs on the table-- you're the one saying that are protecting these legacy costs as sacred "promises" that must be kept at any cost.  I think it's an open question whether these legacy costs represent the "past successes" of these companies, or a crushing burden which had been pushed into the future and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

There is also the issue that the questionable decisions to push gas guzzlers came from the top, not from the unions, and so while the UAW may have to tighten their belt as a result of management blunders they aren't responsible for the contribution of these mistakes to the current problems facing the companies.

I don't know what to say to this, except that when you go to work for any company, your fortunes are tied, for better or worse, to the wisdom or stupidity of management.  Tell me how it can be any other way?  Tell me how we can possibly create a system where we can insulate a worker, be they union or non-union, from the long term consequences of poor management.

Even though you didn't answer mine, but instead claimed "misinformation" without pointing out one shred of it...

Ask yourself why Richard Shelby's home state used tax payer dollars to subsidize the auto industry.

States give companies tax incentives to locate plants there in order to increas job opportunities in their state.  There's nothing wrong with this, and the domestic automakers take advantage of the same kind of breaks . 

Ask yourself why Toyota workers, whose sales are coincidentally falling, are being paid $30 an hour while the UAW is being forced to accept a wage fixed by the GOP.

Because Toyota is a well run company that knows it is well-served to take care of its workers in tough economic times and doesn't need a labor union to tell it to do so.

Ask yourself why Volkswagen just got a $500 million tax subsidy from the US for its American plant.

Because they can.  Because any politician would want to take credit for getting those jobs in their district, and Ford, GM, or Chrysler would be able to get the same kind of tax breaks if they were planning a new plant of similar size.  Because when you win a plant of that size, it generates all kinds of satellite business in the area of the plant. 

The subsidy for VW was provided by Tennessee, not by the US governmnent, by the way.  So again, we are talking about state and/or local government competing for industry, which happens all the time, and Michigan and every other state take part in this competition to attract business investment in their state.

Ask yourself how many Americans are covered for retirement benefits under UAW.

This is a tough questions to answer.  If I was a UAW retiree, I wouldn't be feeling very "covered" right now.  I'd be wondering whether I was going to be losing my coverage in the very near future.

Wouldn't it be just great if labor would work for less. Great! Let Toyota workers work for $28 an hour, which would be LESS than they are getting now.

I know it's tough work-- tougher than mine for sure-- but then again I don't make $28/hour either.

Labor deserves a spokesman to lobby for workers rights, and they individually pay dues to have a spokesman.

Workers "individually" pay dues?  That's one way of putting it.  Another way of putting is that if you want to work in a union shop, you HAVE to pay union dues.