On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:19Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. Â*It's not market driven when the company has
no choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Â*Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and
the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by ,
among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain
the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The
company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and
will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is
essentially held hostage until bled dry.

The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is
just as likely to come from management, as from the union. The entire
concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out
of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the
company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out,
that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is
fairer?

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is
the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite
closely with union membership. Cause and effect?