At some point in every law school, students are taught the old lawyer’s trick of “inconsistent pleadings.” The classic example of this involves a case where someone is accused to borrowing someone’s teapot and breaking it. The (perfectly legal) defense can simultaneously be:

1. I didn’t borrow the teapot
2. The teapot is not broken, AND
3. The teapot was broken when I borrowed it.

That is exactly the game the UAW is playing by simultaneously arguing:

1. We don’t get paid more than non-UAW auto workers
2. We can’t possibly accept a pay cut to non-UAW levels, AND
3. We have already agreed to reduce our pay to non-UAW levels.

The UAW is wasting their talent on the assembly line. They should have all been lawyers.