alt.politics.republicans

Branson Hunter wrote:

> On Sep 25, 5:31 pm, Vandar wrote:
>
>>Timothy wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 25, 5:10 pm, Vandar wrote:
>>
>>>>Miles Long wrote:
>>
>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Branson Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Sep 25, 11:50 am, "grinder" wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>The company cannot afford the current health insurance program for
>>>>>>>>workers
>>>>>>>>and retirees and remain competitive. It is estimated that $1500 is
>>>>>>>>added to
>>>>>>>>each car to pay for the program.
>>
>>>>>>>>If this country had universal health care this would not be an issue.
>>
>>>>>>>I agree. However, GM is just jumping on the mega-corrporate bandwagon,
>>>>>>>attempting to dump union and worker's hard-won entitlements. It's a
>>>>>>>national trend to stick it to working families.
>>
>>>>>>Unions do a good enough job of sticking it to working families.
>>
>>>>>Cite?
>>
>>>>I watched a union put over 300 people out of a job because the union
>>>>wasn't getting their money. The owner of the company was collecting the
>>>>dues from the workers and then not paying the union. The workers were
>>>>still getting their normal paychecks and still had their full health
>>>>benefits. The union forced them all to strike, which shut down the
>>>>company for good.
>>
>>>Well, the company can only shut down for good if management decides to
>>>shut it down. And shutting it down was just one of several options:
>>>management also could have gone ahead and negotiated a deal with the
>>>union, or hired scabs, or moved to another location (perhaps
>>>overseas.) The decision to shut down altogether means that theer may
>>>have been other issues besides labor costs behind the decision.
>>
>>Labor costs had nothing to do with it. Everyone was still getting their
>>paychecks on time when the union ordered the strike. The company even
>>told the workers that if they wanted to work, they could. The workers
>>chose to side with the union and the union put them out of a job.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> No. The company put workers out of a job.

300 workers disagree and sued the union, winning a fairly sizable judgment.