Do we know that the union didn’t advise them of what could happen? To be clear, the union is never going to take the opposing side. Now that many have been fired they union is going to represent them. I could go to work tomorrow and rob the safe of 10,000 dollars and the union would defend me.
And that there is the problem.
Union should be behind fireing and prosocution.
That’s not what I (or Snow) addressed.
The fact that the Union is calling on the university to accede to the wildcat demands means that the union is supporting the strike.
Period.
Not a way for unions to endear themselves to others.
As noted by someone else earlier:
Unions leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of non-union people already. And when crap like this happens, it only reinforces the disdain people have for union.
Between the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 the unions, under the closed shop, had full power to hire and fire union labor.
I can only go by the unions I’ve been in and some I’m familiar with. In my 32 years of being in one union or another I have never once seen them do that. They defend the member even when he’s wrong. Even when there is little to no chance of succeeding. Being in support of the wildcat strike now may be a result of just that. It’s like I mentioned before, do we know they didn’t warn their member what could happen and try to get them back to work? We don’t know that. Maybe they were rebuked? Now they’re just in defense mode.
I mentioned the incident before, remember? When the union stepped in and told them to go back to work after about a week. They went back to work, but what if they didn’t? They would have been suspended or fired and the union would have defended them. But what does it matter? A outlaw strike is always a bad idea and rarely ends well for the employees participating.
What should happen if a company does not follow the contract?
As a matter of interest have there been any incidents when a company has not adhered to a contract?
