Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!alias!kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca
From: kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Community College Teachers on strike
Message-ID: <622@alias.UUCP>
Date: 15 Nov 89 17:48:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: alias.622
References: <606@alias.UUCP> <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <255DCAC0.7630@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <1989Nov14.111855.27329@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Sender: kpicott@alias.UUCP
Reply-To: kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Alias Research Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <1989Nov14.111855.27329@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> 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.
^
This is a veritable minefield of a statement.  It implicitly states that if
the workers feel a management decision is bad for them they will go on
strike.  What about long-range planning that the workers are unaware of?
What about cut staff or die situations?  There must be a middle ground
between management axing workers for no reason other than to shake things
up and workers being kept on staff who are dragging the company under.

I see the ideal situation proceeding as follows:
	(1) Management proposes some (unpopular) changes.
	(2) Workers decide if they need/want the job enough to go along
	    with said changes.
	(3) If not, then management had better come up with a compromise
	    or lose a good portion of their staff.
	(4) If management can accept (3) then the workers who disagree
	    with the changes will not be happy at the job and should in
	    any event look for a new one.

This way workers only remain where they are happy, and management always has
the concerns of the worker in the upper priorities.  Of course in the real
world (3) and (4) means sacrificing the sacred "job security" that everyone
looks for (and by looking for it ensure that they never find it).