Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
So much entitlement in one post. Here goes:
Helped prolong the strike? If they're working it's safe to say they didn't want the strike. It's the strikers who are responsible for the strike; not the guy who opted not to strike. Like, how do you even confuse the very basis of what is happening.
Also, it's you (immaturely, BTW) making their life difficult by A. striking and B. treating them like scum after the strike is over.
You'd have no issue with them promoting themselves to management. WTF are you even talking about? People can't opt to give themselves a promotion into management. That's just not a thing, but I guess it's pretty chill of you to have 'no issue' with that lol.
Nobody is trying to eat cake at the expense of you. It's like union guys act like they're toddlers or something.
It's so clear the union just tries to bully its members onto the same page. The only ones with balls in these things are the scabs. They have character. The screeching hyenas yelling in their faces not so much.
|
Entitlement? When you are in a union the idea is to work together to make sure you're treated fairly and have a voice to stand up to your employer. It is accepted that the majority will dictate what that voice says. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so when that member crosses the line it sends a message to the company that they will win and it also puts them in a better position to maintain their operation while the strike is happening, thus potentially prolonging it.
The striking workers are not trying to make their lives difficult, they are trying to get a better deal, a deal which the company to that point hadn't offered, otherwise they would not have been on strike. If the union gets what they wanted after going on strike, i would hope the employee could see how the company played a role in the union going on strike since they could have offered that deal before a strike to avoid it. At the end of the day both sides played a role since they could not avoid a dispute, but in a case where the company caves after trying to call a bluff i put more onus on the company since they had more power to avoid it.
You may be thinking "oh if they would have offered that before the union would have just asked for more and still went on strike". The way bargaining works is you come up with ammendments before even going to the table, these demands do not change in the form of increases, doing so is what's called bargaining in bad faith, and it doesn't go over very well with a mediator or an arbitrator.
No my post I was not suggesting they create a promotion, but if it is an option and that's how they feel, why not take it? Oh because even though it may pay better they don't want the extra workload and reduced rights and security? Sounds like that person enjoys all the good parts of being in a union but doesn't want to accept the bad. I wonder if that guy who doesn't want to strike would grieve a termination? They made their choice to work in a union, there's no "it's not fair" it's their choice, that's what makes it cake eating. They have the right to quit, leave the union if promoted or try to decertify, but having the best of both worlds is not a right.
How is it clear to you that unions do that? What are you basing it on? I've seen contracts get accepted by less than 55%. In your opinion what happened to the union's Jedi mind tricks on those ones?
Stick to facts.
My union can't force me to change my stance if I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I would cross a picket line because in my opinion I'm only hurting myself in the long run by taking away my unions collective power.