To: steveegg
"They should have been honest in their tactics and struck taking any and all consequences (including replacement) if they thought that it wasn't worth doing 100% of the work for 100% of the pay."
That I will agree with. I'm not fond of people using deceptive tactics. They should have simply struck, IMHO.
To: Billy_bob_bob
Now that that's settled, let's go back to the beginning of
#35 (with the offensive part edited out):
The key difference is that companies can struggle on with a new CEO when the old one decides he wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay. With the power of the union to prevent any replacement of them outside of an actual strike (and no permanent replacements in the event of a strike),..., most companies can't long survive when their union decides it wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay.
93 posted on
10/08/2002 11:31:15 AM PDT by
steveegg
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson