Comments:

radiogurl - 2006-01-25 11:42:35
I have to say it's a two-edged sword. I worked a union job for the phone company and yeah, if they closed your office you got a fairly cushy payoff - but you also couldn't get another comparable-paying job, therefore you needed the money to pay your bills down enough to live on the subsequent slashed-wage level.
-------------------------------
Zon - 2006-01-25 12:24:24
You'll get no disagreement from me. Generally, I don't have a lot of use for unions. Back when they were formed, and there was a lot of abuse of labor, they were necessary. But, um, $50 to drive a truck up and down Long Island because you're a Teamster? Well good golly day, why did I spend all those thousands of dollars getting a college education? $32 an hour to put the tops on mascara? Well, shit, I should have known that before I took out those student loans. Yeah, yeah, we need to pay people "living wages" and compensate them for being bored out of their ghords all day because SOMEone has to punch holes in loose-leaf paper, but how about paying people according to what the job is worth? Then our teachers (okay, THEY need a union) would be making much more than people who put the caps on Pepsi bottles, instead of the other way around. And the Mob wouldn't have so much power, either. Don't get me started on that. So, if they take your liberal card, I guess they can take mine, too.
-------------------------------

Talk to me (but play nice!):

back to the entry - Diaryland