OPB wrote: "And why the switch jobs in Richmond went they way they did."

How do you figure the outfit(s) went non-union for any reason but because the start-up management was simply too in bed with the supporting railroads (read: connecting lines and suppliers of second-hand power and business) to situate it in any fashion but non-union? Do you really think there was a choice in the matter? How many years did you say you've been doing this?

Now that they have employees, the craft can hold an A-card vote, but I would bet they will be too intimidated to do so. See ya at the flea market for our groceries!

You all can say what you want about unions, and I'd be the first to make loud some of the crimes they've perpetuated...some of which I've read here in this thread. But one fact remains that cannot be ignored: These well-paying railroad jobs that provide cash income for your neighbor and his families were negotiated by unions.

You can foam all you want, but the next time I hear some sonofbitch drool over "my great railroad job" I'll be sure to let him know that he, too, can go switch cars all Sunday night for a greatly reduced rate on prior-rights property.

The unions came about chiefly due to corrupt, brow-beating practices by the fine folks like Henry Ford, et. al. And, in spite of all the rhetoric posted on this thread, no one seems to take exception to the plain fact that these dirty little outfits provide piss-poor wages and degraded previously negotiated working conditions.