"...LOL, i knew you would assume that becasue I use the word team to describe my co-workers i am in management. no way i could be a union member and have my POV right? I work the night shift. i am on my own time when i post. I'm not management..."
I've known union members, tough-talking union members no less, who advocated for taking a tough stance and yes... even going on strike, who no sooner than the pickets went up, were crossing the line.
It had nothing to do with providing for their families. At Oak Harbor, many of the picket line crossers went out and actually
had other jobs at other union LTL companies
and were working!
So... why did they cross, if they had jobs and didn't need to provide for their families?
Greed... plain and simple. Many of these guys were senior guys at OHFL who simply couldn't bear the thought of going to the bottom of another board, or losing their five weeks of vacation.
It was easier for them to stick a knife in the back of their fellow employees, many of whom had to sit there and listen to these fine, upstanding senior individuals whine and complain about OHFL management for years before the strike!
Greed... and self-centeredness. If that is the ideal they and you are so proudly espousing... you can have it.
I'll settle for sacrifice and loyalty and brotherhood and staying true to one's principle's no matter how hard or painful it happens to be.
"...My team respects me, because i respect them as individuals and work to attain the best outcome for each and everyone of them as individuals. i don't pretend to have the right to tell them what they have to do, knowing full well it will destroy them. And i would never write any of them off when they make a decision that is best for their family, even if i disagree with it..."
Then you aren't a leader, plainly put.
A leader, union or otherwise, sometimes has to look at the bigger picture and make decisions for the majority. Did General Eisenhower hesitate on the eve of D-Day, knowing how many casualties the Allies would take on the beaches? He did not.
Eisenhower was a leader who understood a little something about sacrifice for the greater good. He might have halted the invasion of Normandy to prevent those Allied losses, but would likely have lost the war in the long run, creating an even greater human catastrophe. No one who fought in those battles and lost friends and family felt that their sacrifice was in vain.
Very few who stand on union picket lines feel that their sacrifice is in vain, either. A battle for a higher principle is a battle for a higher principle, whether the tyrant is a Fascist dictator or a corporate megalomaniac (cough cough David VP cough cough).
"...That is where you, i and the majority of this board disagree. I don't call them line crossers, i call them providers. Sometimes you have to work for today, to protect tomorrow and adapt to the changing environment. I would never advocate job abandonment to obtain pay or benefits. Some, feel that is justified, i don't. i could never go home to my wife and tell her i won't be collecting a paycheck for 157 days becasue i don't want to contribute to my medical, or lose sick days, or because the company needs to save money and is asking for me to give concessions to protect my job down the road. If the job is no longer right for me, i would leave to find the right job. I wouldn't strong arm my employer and risk my career or financial security to make my point..."
If you never stand up for anything, you will eventually run out of places to run to. History teaches us this lesson quite clearly.
Case in point: Woodrow Wilson tried to keep us out of WWI in a futile attempt to stay neutral in what he viewed as a mainly European conflict, without taking the time or effort to understand the nature of Kaiser Wilhelm's dream of empire and glory. Wilson's indifference to the rising toll of death and destruction merely extended the length of the war and guaranteed the fact that the U.S. would inevitably be drawn into the conflict.
You say you would never walk a picket line over medical or sick pay. If things got bad enough, you would simply leave. But if everyone felt that way, in no time, no company would offer any of those options. You could run and run and run, from one company to the next, and you would be on a treadmill to the bottom.
Why?
Because you refuse to draw a line in the sand. You refuse to say, "I am worth X amount, and I am willing to fight for it, if need be."
Instead, you reveal that you have a cowardly soul and value nothing more than the fact that your own self-interest takes precedence over larger principles like sacrifice and brotherhood. Such were values that Jesus himself taught and revered, and Mohammad, too.
I would say union workers were in good company, there...
"...I also understand that companies will never give in to a strike. I understand you don't want to debate me, but show me one clear case of a strike doing anything to force a company to say "I give up, you get what you want" Clear case, not Union Rhetoric saying they won, while the company says they won. EVERY strike I have seen, or been party to ended up with the same proposals... or less..."
You are completely missing the point here: collective bargaining is not about one side dictating to the other in empirical fashion and winning a complete victory. Collective bargain is, at it's heart, about compromise and give and take. I have never seen a successful contract bargained where both sides didn't each gain some and lose some.
Every union leader knows a strike is the ultimate roll of the dice, because what you risk is often more than you might gain. But in many cases, a strike is the last and remaining resort when all other options have failed. Very few unions in the modern age feel like they have clear and overwhelming leverage on the employer they are battling, and so every strike is a carefully calculated gambit to force the employer to move their pieces on the proverbial board.
Have some strikes been called because of foolish greed? Sure. Have some strikes been forced because of employer misconduct, i.e. Oak Harbor Freight Lines? Of course. Some strikes are not about economics, but about deeper principles based in the law we all live under. If an employer insists on breaking the law, a union often has to initiate a strike to bring the government's attention to bear on the problem.
"...For those worried about losing 6 sick days, you lost 157 days. For those that don't want to contribute to helath care. Calculate how many years you will work off the 157 days on the line that you collected no pay. If you worked elsewhere to fund your income while on strike, you're a hypocrate, becasue you are not really in the fight. That goes back to my "If you don't like it, find a better job" statement. (I use 157 days since i don't know the full time, someone else posted 157)..."
It's not about a simple numerical tally. If the union had simply rolled over and gave in on the medical or the sick pay, what would have happened in the next contract? They had already made it clear the pension was next. Their game was to drive a wedge between the union and the employees, with the ultimate goal beng of breaking the union.
It wasn't really about dollars and cents... never was for Dave and Eddy-boy. It was about control. It was about stubborness and greed and a spoiled little boy's reaction "No one is going to tell me what to do in my own company!"
They went so far as to fly back East and meet with other companies that had broken the union at their respective workplaces!
Their clear intent was never to bargain in good faith, per the law, but instead to roadblock, fillibuster, and delay. I've been there, seen it with my own eyes, and know of what I speak. And the NLRB knows this too, and woe be to Dave and Eddy-boy when the judgments start rolling down upon their heads!
"...OK, i'm done. I won't "hijack" the board anymore to offer a different point of view that yours. I'll make sure my view stays hidden in PM's. But not to you, because even though you have more posts than me (LOL at you counting my posts... like that matters in the grand design... you just found this forum before I did) I don't have any desire for you to tell me what you think in private. I think people are interested in the debate. Hiding the debate only serves YOU..."
Just a piece of advice, my friend: I've been on this board a long time as a poster and as a former moderator. The respect you give is the respect you will receive.
Posting on this board with a big chip on your shoulder will earn you few friends, and no respect. Debate is encouraged, so long as it is constructive and central to the topic at hand and the forum it is contained in. Pick your fights better, and don't get a chip on your shoulder every time someone disagrees with you, whether they are a moderator or not.
In the end, these are all just opinions and thoughts. Nothing to get worked up over, especially if you have no dog in this fight as you claim...
shitshitshit