Posted by Bob Sanders on September 12, 2000 at 11:33:36:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strike Votes _vs_ mgmt -vs- union-bustin posted by Joe Baker on September 12, 2000 at 08:58:48:
<< To me, 'fair' means that you pay people what the market will bear. If a good oboe player is more rare than a good violist, the oboe player should be making more money. That's 'fair', to me. I suspect (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you consider 'fair' to mean everyone makes the same money. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy. >>
If I may chime in on this discussion, frequently, wind (and other) players will make more than "scale". "Scale" is a minimum standard. "Fair" (to me) means that all of my colleagues earn enough to get by. If management has more money to pass around after that, it is their "freedom" to do so.
Regarding addressing "abuses" in the court system: a good deal of the law in this area is the result of collective political action by organized labor and is another compelling argument in favor of unions. Holding money in escrow until after the gig is far from a new idea. The AFM will do just this with proven "problem" employers. The majority of the time, the protection offered by a union contract works very well.
During the depression, my grandfather was a railroad switchman. His union voted to work a three day week instead of six -- so that the men with less seniority could feed their families too. This strikes me as eminently "fair". This is the essence of unionism. I am certain that the management would have been perfectly happy to see those men standing in soup lines rather than working.
In the pithy quote department, I believe Benjamin Franklin said: "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
Clearly I have a pro-union bias. On the other hand, it has served me and my family well for generations. If one wants to work in Seattle, caveat emptor!