Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Unions, CRDs...
Message-ID: <1051@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 08:19:09 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1051
Posted: Wed Jan 22 08:19:09 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jan-86 08:43:43 EST
References: <137@ubc-cs.UUCP> <756@watmath.UUCP> <139@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Distribution: can
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 28
Summary: so?

In article <1777@dciem.UUCP> reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake) writes:
>
>		If a worker did not pay for union
>membership, it would be practically impossible to prevent
>him from gaining because of their activities. A company
>simply cannot afford the time to negotiate different wage
>rates on an individual basis. As a result, when the union,
>representing a large proportion of the workers in a company,
>arrives at a contract, chances are that the results of the
>contract would be applied to the whole company, not just to
>the union members.

Well, that's the company's decision. They can choose to offer less pay
to non-union members if they wish, and employees are free to accept or
reject any particular terms of employment, including pay, byu accepting
or rejecting the employment.

Your argument would suggest that a company cannot afford not to have
a union to bargain with. Well, Dofasco and the like are doing fine.
I have no doubt that Dofasco sets its pay scales and then invites
prospective employees to accept employment on that basis, or reject it.
Isn't that "negotiating pay rates on an individual basis"? (Of course,
Dofasco's pay scales are no doubt closely tied to those of the union
shops like Stelco, but that's another matter.)

Dave Sherman
-- 
{ ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  } !lsuc!dave