Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!laredo
From: laredo@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Alain Laredo)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Community College Teachers on strike
Message-ID: <1989Nov14.132847.1767@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 89 18:28:47 GMT
References: <606@alias.UUCP> <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <255DCAC0.7630@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <1989Nov14.111855.27329@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Distribution: ont
Lines: 21

flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:

>riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes:
>>Is it possibly related to the fact that it is usually the *union* that
>>proposes new working conditions which favour itself, rather than *management*
>>that proposes new working conditions favouring itself?

>>flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>I don't think this is true.  Often strikes are the result of the management
>proposing CHANGES which are bad for the workers.  For example, in the Toronto
>TTC strike one of the biggest issues was that of the management INTRODUCING
>part-time workers.  The management wanted to change the existing situation, and
>the union wanted it to say the same.  This was one of the big strike issues,
>and without it I don't think the workers would have gone on strike.

   I like when people believe that one example is enough to prove their
statements and disprove other's. Probably using the TA's strike where
the *union* was asking for better conditions I can disprove Alan's assertion.
Next time why don't you use some statistics to make your statements?

Jim Laredo.