"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:18:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
And, like I said, you used the term "wildcat." I didn't.


Not my term Jon, I didn't make it up. Definition:

Never said it was your term Frank. What I said was, you used it, then
claimed I did. Untrue.

It seems to me that
when management and union members are in disagreement, the first step
should
not be to attack each other. In the case I cited, management made a stupid
mistake of not respecting those in the union, the union people were
offended
and reacted, then management wised up and decided not to make a major
issue
out of it, apologizing, and moving on.

"What seems to you" is irrelevant. Your opinion about the actions of
management or the workers reaction to them doesn't matter nor would
mine regardless of wether it is the same or different. Once a
bargaining unit has agreed to collective bargaining, they have given
up the right to act individually, unilaterally or arbitrarily. They
have to abide by the contract. Both parties have that obligation.

Well, since I was there and I experienced it, it seems to me that you're
trying hard to backpeddle.

In your advise, both sides would have suffered.

I advised nothing about the incident you described, only that there
were ways to handle it successfully within the contract. Allowing a
wildcat strike to occur without reaction would destroy the integrity
of the contract.

Yes, both sides would have suffered much more than just an open discussion
of the problem. Now you're claiming that the integrity of the contract was
more important than the actual work. Bzzzt.

You're just plain wrong and can't admit it.

no comment.

Clearly.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com