@Porwest
more from that month
I am typically not pro-union, nor am I necessarily pro-strike. But in the case of the Nabisco workers striking to keep their current pay structures, I just happen to think that Nabisco is making the wrong decision during a time when workers have ALL of the leverage. This is a 'workers' economy right now with many businesses struggling to fill positions, with even fast food restaurants offering $1000 sign on bonuses and upwards of $17 an hour to flip burgers for crying out loud. Every company wants to reduce cost. But the time is not now for them to do it at the expense of the workers. In a different time, and under a different set of circumstances, I would actually support the decision of the company. It will be interesting nonetheless to see how Mondelez, the now parent company of Nabisco after the 2012 spin-off from Kraft Foods, deals with this. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nabisco-workers-on-strike_n_611c099fe4b0e5b5d8e3c600
4 comments
The threat of workers unionizing is more effective IMHO than workers forming an actual union.
Sometimes it can be, for sure. It makes the company reevaluate things a bit, and usually works in favor of the employees. Conversely, a lot of the time unions cost more jobs than they save.
I'm not a fan of unions at all. They tend to make the workplace more bureaucratic, and make it difficult to get things done. But the THREAT of a union sometimes causes management to get their heads out of their butts.
Management CAN have their heads up their butts from time to time. I have worked briefly in two union shops, and worked 6 1/2 years in a split shop. I hated the two that were full union, and was glad I was on the side of non-union in the split shop.