Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!reid
From: reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Unions, CRDs...
Message-ID: <1779@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 16:34:24 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1779
Posted: Thu Jan 23 16:34:24 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 22:16:55 EST
References: <137@ubc-cs.UUCP> <756@watmath.UUCP> <139@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1051@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis)
Distribution: can
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 18


The problem that you are missing is that a company without
a union is not the same as the company with a union, but
without complete membership. This puts the company in an
awkward position. If they pay non-union members more
than union ones, they will get protests and quite possibly
strikes from the unionists. If they pay non-unionists LESS,
then quite soon the union membership will become near total.
Neither alternative is particularily palatable, so the
company must pay the same. Ergo, as I said before, the
employees benefit equally.
David Russell Brake I, Esq.
Gentleman & Scholar
-- 
--
Reid Ellis	"It *is* Space Invaders!!"
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reid
This message brought to you courtesy of the Poslfit Committee