"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
Skanky owners. If their people were treated well, they'd have never
sought to unionize in the first place.

It couldn't have been such a bad place to work. If it was the
employees would seek employment elsewhere. That's what you'd do, isn't
it?

The assumption on your part that it's possible to find other
employment?

Well if the only available employment is "workin at da ca wash" then
they should stop harassing the management and get to work before they
get fired.


So, what you're saying is that if there's no other viable job, then it's
ok for management to exploit the worker? That's certainly not right. It's
called mutual respect, and it works.

Absolutely not. If these guys don't like the conditions of employment they
can walk. There's probably a waiting list full of liberal arts grads
waiting for the opportunity to work at the car wash.


With no other job prospects? Hardly.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is "legal"
even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is for the
female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss to be held
accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more reasonable. If the
boss actually treats his employees with respect, then no one needs to be
held accountable, no action is necessary, no union is needed.

--
Nom=de=Plume