Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodooman
You're kidding, right? The very fact that the union honchos agreed to go back to work could be enough to convince some hard-liner that this is the right course of action.
Apparently in my earlier post I should have quoted Rathji, as my post was intended to be opinion, not fact, just like his was. Now, I happen to believe that it is opinion supported by past precendence and the current circumstances, but it is opinion nonetheless.
Kavy, being anti-union is just as valid a position as being pro-union. Governments and employers get accused of all sorts of shady and downright illegal activities in any strike, but the workers are not all clean and pure at heart as you'd like to believe. Given the timing, it's not unreasonable to believe this act is strike related. Perhaps my use of "no doubt" without the qualifying statement of "in my mind" was in error, but I don't believe it renders my opinion as "######ed".
|
I agree - your use of "no doubt" is what caught me in thinking you were stating matter of fact, which is what led to my response. It was a mistake to use those words.
I stated in my post, speculation in this thread was expected and fine, and so I took no issue with you relating it to the strike at all. I agree, it could very well be related.
I never stated I was pro-union and so I would have no issue with anti-union positions. In fact, I have been forced to belong to unions in the past and hated paying every hard earned cent they forced me to pay into them, however, I understand there place in society.
Nothing of what I said was about your stance on unions; it was purely about your assumption that "No doubt" this was union activity, and then you managed in one single swoop to turn the love everyone has for first responders into hate for unions.
The word ######ed was a bit harsh, I apologize for that, you are correct; I should have not said that. Bringing up first responders in a way to attack another group stuck a cord in me.