Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Here's the question...
If we accept that Unions are an important binding check on Corporations/Employers to ensure safe and ethical practice, and allow their abilities to severely hamper an industry...
Then who is the check on Unions to be a binding check on their safe, ethical and responsible practice, and stop them from poor decisions?
Because in the case of the CAW/UAW v. The Detroit 3... somebody has to be able to force the Unions to realize their position of accepting zero fault, and refusing to adjust is dangerous and naiive, just like unions in the past were able to force employers to realize their positions were wrong. Employers only have one way of doing so, and it involves using a hacksaw instead of a scalpel. Governments are typically unwilling to enter the fray unless its one of the unions they deal with.
|
If any union is so stubborn or too stupid to see that their members are going to become non-members (unemployed) unless the terms of their employment change and they all lose their jobs then tough break. Get in the soup line.
If they can gouge their employer for as much money as possible and that employer can still stay afloat, good for them.
That is capitalism, isn't it?