Yeah, unions are useless:

usafpilot07 wrote: evillepaintball wrote: They didn't strike because of the pay.  One of the big issues they were striking against is the standardized test based evaluation system.  From what I've read. Should a teacher really lose their job because their students refuse to learn? I'm not well versed on the issues facing the union, but I'm 99% sure that on the news last night(the Chicago channel) they mentioned that they were also against having personal teacher performance evaluations. If that's true, it's ridiculous. Tenure in general is dumb, IMO.

evillepaintball wrote: They didn't strike because of the pay.  One of the big issues they were striking against is the standardized test based evaluation system.  From what I've read. Should a teacher really lose their job because their students refuse to learn?

I'm not well versed on the issues facing the union, but I'm 99% sure that on the news last night(the Chicago channel) they mentioned that they were also against having personal teacher performance evaluations.

If that's true, it's ridiculous. Tenure in general is dumb, IMO.

On strike, chicago public teachers union...

Hmm, teachers union in Obamatown to strike tonight...

It is a private company. 

Teachers make so much money....we should really take away their unions and bring their pay back to earth.

tallen702 wrote:   Companies no longer care about the individuals they employ and will do whatever it takes to squeeze every penny until it bleeds

I understand what you're saying Rofl, but the reality is that workers aren't going to strike if they don't feel the potential benefits outweigh the risks, and that they honestly aren't being taken seriously, or compensated properly, for the jobs they are doing. It's the union members who talk to their representatives to file grievances, it's only when those grievances become numerous that the union reps go beyond talking to the individual shift managers and HR people at the company and escalate the situation to either strike due to the company not holding up their end of the CBA, or because the company doesn't want to sit down and actually talk about a new CBA on equal terms.

Trust me, I don't believe unions are made up of unicorns and rainbows, there are a lot of corruption cases involving them, and when the leaders aren't sensible people, and resort to old-hand tactics like threats of violence and whatnot, then they aren't acting in the best interests of their members and they need to be kicked out or hauled in on charges. But the basic job of protecting the rights of its members is what unions do on a daily basis.

Believe you me, when I was younger, having grown up in coal country, I hated all unions with a passion. But having been in the work force for some 16 years now, I can definitely see where unions have a place in the world, and the example brought up with this article is just one of the many reasons why.

Rofl_Mao wrote: The city that I live in now used to have a shipbuilding business (Irving Shipbuilding). It is because of the union that Irving moved the shipbuilding out of Saint John. This year the Canadian government signed a multi-billion dollar contract with Irving Shipbuilding... in Halifax. That contract would've gone to Saint John instead if they still had the business here, and all that money would've gone right back into the city because of the thousands of workers working on the ships. The union wanted more money from the company and locked itself out, Irving said F-that and pulled the whole business out to a more profitable location. Unions don't work as well as they are portrayed. Another union dispute has been ongoing in the province for almost a year now affecting the only bus service throughout the province. Same thing: the union wants more money and is unwilling to work with the company and has locked itself out affecting service to everyone. Unions are greedy and unrealistic.

On the inverse, companies no longer care about the individuals they employ and will do whatever it takes to squeeze every penny until it bleeds for their shareholders. Corporate responsibility is as extinct as the dinosaurs and rather than come to the table to negotiate with the union, the company decided it could pay people less money if it moved elsewhere, using the union demands as a convenient ploy to make the move that they were intending to make anyway.

That's not to say unions are perfect in every way. But back to the case at hand, a union would have protected the workers from the outright abuse of power that the mine was pulling.

It's always interesting to see people point to "The Union" as if it were a singular entity rather than a representative body. If the bus company is indeed willing to come to the table with reasonable terms, you shouldn't be pointing fingers at "The Union" but rather the people they represent.

I was just as guilty as you in putting the singular face on the union body when I was younger. But when you think about it, are you willing to walk up to a bus driver who is on strike and tell him face to face that you think he doesn't deserve what he's asking for?

I'm willing to walk up to a UMWA member on strike at a strip or MTM mine and tell them to rot in hell, but I won't do it to a deep miner. That's the difference. I understand that the UMWA is a representative body, it's alright to disagree with what the UMWA or AFL-CIO or any other organization is fighting for, so long as you understand that you're telling individual people that they aren't worth it. Be it a pay raise, affordable medical insurance, better safety equipment, etc.

With that in mind, remember, it wasn't the shipbuilder's union you should blame, but the individual ship builders themselves.

You should be able to pass on any vaccine based on religious belief.

At will is so handy for them.