"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. 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.

You're basing your position on words from Rush? Equally Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. 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.

Assuming there are other jobs.

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.

No.. negotiated by the management and the union. Both have coercive elements
in their position. Yes, there's a lag in wage adjustment due to market
conditions, since it's a contract situation. The management (and the union)
need to honor the contract, unless the company goes bankrupts (as what
happened). Union workers don't generally strike in the middle of a contract,
unless there are special circumstances.

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they
can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other
non-union shops, but there might not be.

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

I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume