"Jon A" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:02 GMT, John Theune
wrote:

Jon A wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jon A" wrote in message
m...

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?


Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.

Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.

Sounds like a pure republican talking.

I think he sounds like reality, and that's no political party. Take te AA
F/A tantrum a while back, when the company was about to file for bankruptcy.
There's only one reason why they did what they did -- because they could, to
stomp on the ground and scream "You brute! You brute! You brute!
Wwwwaaaaaaaa!" What was hilarious to me was their complaining about a
standard practice in companies in trouble who need to keep their key
personnel -- retention bonuses. There's a zillion F/A's out there, and many
more wannabe's on the streets. Finding a top exec or key manager that can
take over a key position when the company is in trouble is damn near
impossible. But of course, expecting a union to recognize this is just as
impossible, especially when hormones, or a lack thereof, get in the way.