Couldn't agree with you more, there. Before unions came along, the plight of the working person was atrocious.



The greedy excesses, hell, amoral abuses, of the industrialists created the labor movement. People were shot for gathering to demonstrate for better pay - - shot by American police. Ever hear of the "riot act"? It was a law that basically labeled any demonstration as being a riot, and permitted the local police to use deadly force to disperse it. Such force was used within a very few days after the law's ennactment; most historians agree the riot act was created to save a single factory from an ongoing or impending strike. The Riot act was read to the crowd, they were ordered to disburse, then they were fired upon.



Hence the popular saying "I read them the riot act"



Horrible, simply horrible. American peace officers shooting randomly into a crowd of unarmed demonstrators.





I have no beef with collective bargaining - - so long as employer and labor group both have the option of finding an alternative.



Modern labor laws, enacted by certain politicians "lobbied" heavily by labor unions, preclude employers from starting over with new employees, once any unionizing has begun. On the other hand, it's not fair to fire anybody who whispers the word "union" either.



In PATCO's situation, there are no ATC's who are not trained and employed by the employer, except various former workers who have "moved on" for good or bad reasons - Since the government offers to train up employees to fill the demand, there is no large body of alternate workers to establish a "fair market value" for the labor. The employer in this case had good and fair reason to offer work conditional on a promise not to strike.



Speaking as an employer, I don't favor the general, economy-wide adoption of this practice. My solution is to treat my people better than the union guys across town. I'm not getting rich this way, but I sleep nights like a baby, and my people seem to feel okay, too.



Keep one hull up.



Ed Norris