Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Why would a you assume union workers are happy to see something detrimental happen to their company? While you can make the argument asking for higher wages hurts a company's profit, if it is a reasonable and fair amount and keeps your workers happy, to call it detrimental is a bit of reach. If their company goes under there isn't a union in the world that will be able to save their job so unions try to get the best deal they can within the means of their employer.
If what you wrote is what you really think it might be a good idea to do a little research on the labour/union movement and what they really are about.
|
I said union zealot. That word has a specific meaning.
You, for instance, are a union member. And one who has been quite reasonable throughout this thread. Resurrection demonstrates the attitude of the zealot. While the two of you are on the same side of the overall debate, I am quite certain you see the differences between you two, particularly in attitude and combativeness, that the rest of us do.
Edit: I would add that what the union movement
was about is not really what it is about today. IMNSHO, modern unions tend to display many behavioural traits similar to that of the employers they view as being enemies. One aspect in particular that I was actually talking about elsewhere today being the trend of consolidation and concentration of power and control that has occurred over the years. One has to ask how unions with literally millions of members representing diverse groups in differing industries can hope to operate in the best interest of
all members. That concentration of power at these largest levels also results in another change - one of replacing a union's former attitude of being about pride and unity being with being about entitlement and selfishness. Again, character traits demonstrated by your erstwhile companion.