"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:31:46 GMT, "Lonny Bruce"
said:

Collective bargaining should be allowed. It is more effecient for
management, and it assures all workers of getting a somewhat equal and
fair
shake.

As to efficiency, I find that a fairly weak argument. Seems to me it would
be more efficient for management to be able to pay its harder working and
more productive workers more than the guy who starts putting on his coat
at
4:45.

Which is why a legal firm would be a much better option than a union in
today's workforce. Most of the union bosses are poorly educated,
unmotivated, under-achievers who rely on seniority and the "good ole' boys"
club mentality to secure a cushy position within the union hierarchy. If
union dues were used to employ a legal firm to negotiate pay rates and
benefits, the threat of a strike would be a non-issue and the cost of
lengthy litigation would provide incentive for both sides to reach an
agreement. As it is the collective bargaining and union demands are
generally fuelled by the personal agenda of the union bosses..... not the
requirements of the rank & file membership.

CM