Specter: I Will Not Vote For Cloture On EFCA

this is only true at my workplace, but it is no less indicative of certain problems in general.
Its not really playing sides when the bulk of the company is not unionized, the union just wanted equal payout for all, and the company said no, so the union stuck to their guns instead of accepting what EVERY other emlpoyee in the company gets. emlpoyees loose because of the union. In other workplaces your argument may work, but my company is REALLY progressive without the unions.

depending on the issue the side fo the debate that serves the people less should acquiesce. In this case the company line was fair for all, in my view, yet the union wouldn't submit (in all honesty they were worried about performance evaluations leading to dismissal but their actions hurt them doubly).

Yes, sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice some immediate rewards to gain stability and job security.

I sincerely doubt that your company would be as progressive as it apparently is, if the organized voice of the workers had not been involved. But your company has been successful in BREAKING WORKER SOLIDARITY -- by playing one side against the other -- the oldest trick in the book.

Workers need to stand together. No institution will look out for us otherwise, not corporations, not government.

my argument is this; neither will the unions. It looks out for its own best interest first. just like corps and govs. they are more alike than different. for many jobs and companies, I concede your point, but mine, is an entirely different story. this is why I am not a fan of unions for unions sake, only when those involved are educated and want it. But in today's day and age, not every company needs it, least of all in an office.

Okay. I can buy your assertion that your company, and companies like yours, may not need old style unions. Unions, in my view, need to be constantly monitored by their members -- like any human institution, and made more responsive to THE PEOPLE -- which is what all this is about.

But you must admit, that without unions in the past, your company would still be in the dark ages. So unions played a part in achieving what your company has apparently achieved.

I appreciate the work unions have done in the past and the current climate where many companies are responsible is due directly to their influence. I think jobs that involve personal injury risk should have unions, as peoples lives shouldn't be played with. they have done good, but they should only be, at least currently, where they are wanted by a majority of workers who have not been coerced, unless serious personal injury is likely possible in the job...

A refreshingly nuanced opinion!!

It has been fun interacting with you. You have a unique perspective, and I learned a good deal about Canadian TV and business.

I'm going to bail now, and go watch Rachel Maddow. I will look for you later in the TPM vids.

it truly has been a pleasure to make your brief acquaintance TaoofMichael, I look forward to exchanging ideas in the future.

Cheers and Salut !

... in our workplace, there is no oversight of unions, I think if there was I would be less apprehensive about them.