[Orion]

Now all groups, regardless of how much I normally sympathize, lose my support when they strike; they lose more support when they "semi-strike" (work slowdowns, blue flu, stuff like that), if you're gonna strike have the balls to actually strike.

What happens if the gov't won't allow a strike? What happens if the statists of the world unite, and have the gov't outlaw strikes? That is what is happening in the airline industry, and what is at stake in this year's elections. The Pubbies have stated that they will outlaw strikes if they get the Senate. While the Pubbies will likely win, their efforts will be on the wrong side of the law of unintended consequences.

Slow downs, sick outs, and the blue flu are the only way around this, other than the atom bomb that many pilots have been talking about. Allow me to explain...

What would all the statist Pubbies do when the mother of all sickouts occurs when "binding arbitration" is the law of the land? When 5% of the pilots sick out on day one, 10% on day two, the news reports it and then the ball really gets rolling, until you have 60-70% of the airline pilots sitting at home collecting sick leave, you will have a mess on your hands.

Most of us have enough sick leave to stay away from work for 9-12 months before we miss a cent. Could you operate with less than 1/3 of the pilots at work? The airlines would shut down, and the country would be constipated.

Believe me, the majority of captains I fly with support the idea. My ex-USN buddies at other airlines report the very same.

Now what? Have the gov't "force" us back to work? How? Revoke our licenses for being "sick?" We all will get doctor notes, or start quoting the Federal Aviation Regs about how the pilot determines if he is sick, not the FAA or the company. Revoking the licenses would only compound the problem. Would the MIB show up in the middle of the night with bayonettes and have us fly at knife point? How long before Congress recinds the law? A week? Two weeks? Could you wait that long?

Then, you would have a union really show its muscle, and they will likely use it more often to get other things they like.

Sometimes, statism does not work. The gov't needs the people more than the people need the gov't.

[discostu]

Yeah gee whiz, what if workers are so vital to the survival of this nation that we dare not let them strike. Yeah, I'm supposed to be sympathetic that the adversarial relationship THEY created with management has resulted in them feeling screwed. To hell with them, get to freaking work and do the job.

Slowdown, sick outs and all that crap are being pussies. At least leftists are willing to go to jail for their beliefs. Staging fake strikes so you can cripple your employer but not risk violating the law is just being a bunch of cowards. If your position is right you should be willing to go to jail for it. But no, you're only willing to risk the lives of the people you're sworn to protect, that's real nice stuff.

You present EXACTLY why striking is bad. Because whether the union is right or wrong the minute you guys walk off the job the employer HAS TO cave. That's BS. There's no bargaining. Everybody with unionized employees gets two choices:
give the unions everything they want
go under
The fact that unions worship these strong arm tactics shows just how sick they are. All the rhetoric is about "defending the worker" but that's BS, strikes are about telling management who's really boss. Unions have never accomplished one drop of good in this country, everything they take credit for was done by congress.

This isn't statism, it's wanting the free market to be allowed to do what it does best. Everytime you accuse me of being a statist for hating labor monopolies you damage what little point you never had in the first place. Try using fact instead of slurs. Problem of course is that there are NO FACTS that show unions to be good in ANY POSSIBLE WAY. Calling people statist and using the rhetoric of Marx isn't going to win you any friends here, try it at DU that crap flies good there.