Is Buzz Hargrove a sellout?

Not working in the manufacturing sector, I had not really paid that much attention to Buzz Hargrove's recent deal with Frank Stronach to unionize Magna. I was aware that there was a no-strike condition to the arrangement but according to Ed Broadbent the whole thing goes much further:

'Mr. Hargrove's proposal eliminates worker-selected shop stewards. Instead, he proposes "employee advocates." Management would play a key role in selecting these "advocates."'

That's actually astonishing, the idea that management would select the shop stewards really strikes me as going far beyond what Hargrove needed to concede in this arrangement. Broadbent's opinion-piece on the subject deserves a full read, it lays out just what the consequences are for these Hargrove concessions.

One wonders what the purpose is then for the CAW to set up union drives in plants where there can be no strikes and no workplace democracy. What exactly would unionized Magna workers get in return for their dues?

I'm a pretty conflict averse guy in real (non-blogging) life and so I'm not that big super-confrontational union bosses and needless workplace antagonism, but I still figure that unions ought to stand up for workers. Buzz Hargrove has decided he'd rather sit around with management.

Kicking the tires on Chrysler

I think the FP is right in thinking that a Magna bid would be a prelude to a break-up of Chrysler. (HT) Quote:

"Mr. Stronach has stressed, however, that Magna does not want to risk losing the business of its major customers, namely Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. by competing directly with them. Taking an ownership position in Chrysler may put it in that situation. A more likely outcome is that Magna would invest in Chrysler’s vehicle production operations in a way that’s palatable for Magna’s main clients."

This whole move has made me question whether this is more than simply one company picking over the carcass of another one. The auto industry is home to some of the most powerful brands in the world - nameplates from Lexus to Chevrolet bring an instant association. In many industries though, big brands don't make anything anymore, it's all contracted out. The only things that Nike owns (aside from its offices and retail outlets) is the swoosh and the name. Same thing, so I understand, with most apparel manufacturers.

Is it possible for the auto industry to be divided similarly. On one hand there'd be the brands and their dealer networks, on the other hand, there'd be manufacturing and distribution networks. Some companies might remain vertically integrated, but most of them would simply contract out their manufacturing. Magna already does this for DaimlerChrysler in Austria where they assemble SUV's. I'm not an economist, or a business major, but is this plausible? What are the implications for all those unionized auto-worker jobs in Ontario? What are the implications for new vehicle prices?