Path: utzoo!lsuc!attcan!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!violet!mdhutton
From: mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Community College Teachers on strike
Message-ID: <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 89 16:55:19 GMT
References: <606@alias.UUCP> <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton)
Distribution: ont
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 61

In article <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>
>Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes?  Certainly it must
>at least sometimes be the management's fault!  Of course the union could end
>the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the management.

I'd hate to say that I would always blame the union, but in most cases I would.

I see too many people who would be eager and willing to take a job, and work
hard at it, to have sympathy for people earning far beyond what their 
ambitions (read effort) warrant.

This is obviously true for the TTC.  The union here artificially maintains
the cost of workers well above that which is actually earned.  I'm not down
on 'working' people, rather, I would rather see the jobs go to *working*
people.   Need I even mention Canada Post? :^)

I'm not so sure about the collage strike, partly because I am ignorant of
most of the details.  I can't really understand why college teachers would
make less than high-school teachers.  If so, why is there not a shortage
of college teachers? (ie. they *should* obviously be well qualified to teach
high-school??).  Is there a college teacher to answer this question?

I also find it questionable (frightening?) when a supposed "auto workers 
union" now represents every worker under the sun, and is still growing?

My personal feeling is that a union allows groups of related employees to 
bargain together, thereby promoting efficiency in the bargaining process and
providing some degree of 'security' for workers which may have little or
no bargaining power individually.  Sounds good.  This allows 
the workers to retain the benefits of more highly skilled workers, 
who have the ability to bargain individually (ie. if I don't like 
an job, I quit, and find a better one), and change jobs easily.  Thus, when
bargaining, the company has to consider the value vs. payment for
*all* of its (experienced) sheet-metal workers, rather then single ones.  It
is relatively easy to do without one worker in a field of many, but it
is pretty difficult to lose all at the same time.

However, just as an employer could decide me to not be worth what I think
I am, and tell me to shove it; if the membership is as-a-whole is not worth
it's salt, I don't see any reason for the management to be required to 
retain it (Are you listening Canada Post?  Too bad it doesn't really work
that way).  

I'm especially down on union management.  In my home town they convinced the
membership to strike (about 18 months) a barely-above-water foreign-owned 
industry for higher wages.  Need I explain the outcome?  There are now 
2000 less people working there.  Contrast this to one of the smartest 
union moves ever (Chrysler), where working with the company caused 
better fortunes for all (This required both union 
and management *co-operation*).

To sum up what I said before, a union provides collective bargaining, but
if the collective is not a bargain, I say start interviewing again.

Regards,

Mike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hutton
University of Waterloo, Computer Science.      mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu