1000 people are paid $40k/yr. Funds are tight so there are 2 possible solutions - all 1000 people take 1 unpaid day per month, resulting in a loss of about $1900 per person in income for the year, or 50 people lose their jobs completely (in other words, a loss of $40k/yr). There is no guarantee which of the 1000 people will be among the 50, and no matter which 50 they are, their absence will guarantee an increased work load without increased compensation for the people who stay.
Why is it, when presented with this scenario time and time again, the union always backs the option of firing people and worsening working conditions for everyone else rather than the option that is best for ALL the people they represent?
Answer by jewjewbee at 9:38 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by jewjewbee at 9:39 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by Nonoluna at 9:40 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 9:42 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Well that just can't be! We are told repeatedly here by union supporters that unions are for the employees! They couldn't possibly do anything to negatively effect any of the people the represent, could they? If so, this is a very inconvenient truth. (btw, most of that is sarcasm).
Answer by QuinnMae at 9:45 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by soyousay at 9:50 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by jewjewbee at 9:55 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by soyousay at 10:00 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by mustbeGRACE at 10:19 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Answer by jewjewbee at 10:28 AM on Feb. 22, 2011
Featured Posts in All Groups