T Judah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Magruder asks: "And how would the workers be
> better off without a union?"
>
> Not sure they would be better off without a union.
> But considering the rail unions in particular,
> one could just as well wonder how they are better
> off WITH them. Of course, the never-asked
> question is; how they could ever be better off
> without the company that pays their wages. Ya I
> know - something has to balance the abuse of raw
> economic power by the few employers, over the many
> workers.
>
> But just as obviously, one has to wonder what good
> are unions that presided over an 80% loss of jobs
> over the last few decades; or ones that permit 7
> day weeks and 12 hour days to be the norm; or
> ones that poach the jobs of other crafts; or ones
> that would not summarily walk off the job in
> solidarity, the very instant some official
> tampered with a signal, just to goad an otherwise
> responsible engineer into making a safety critical
> mistake.
>
> Too bad the railroad unions have utterly failed to
> protect their members interests, and are just as
> likely to do dirt on the workers as is the company
> - often in the form of sending their smelly thugs
> after those that dare to ask questions, or refuse
> the COPE demands.
>
> With unions like that - who the hell could ever be
> worse off without 'em!

I suppose it all depends on what's important to you. I've never heard of a non-union railroad that has higher wages, better H&W benefits, better work rules (or any work rules at all) and a better grievance process than a unionized railroad. That's why the employees on so many formerly non-union railroads have voted to unionize.

Sure, there are a lot of things I don't like, but I sure as hell would rather work under a Collective Bargaining Agreement than not . . . even with Union Pacific doing its best to blatantly violate the CBA at every opportunity. But, to each his own.