On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.

What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The
union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in
the labor-management relationship.

That is reasonable. I don't see where that is not occurring in this
instance.

Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
such employee abuse occurs.

There are millions of union employees who are well paid, well trained, well
treated, and secure in their positions because they do their jobs well and
their companies make money.

And employee interests are voiced collectively when they are
threatened by management. That, in addition to good job performance,
is what assures their positions.

But how often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we ought
to disrupt anything right now."

I have heard similar sentiment voiced by union leaders when it is
appropriate.

Any union man or woman who said such a thing would be instantly branded as a
management stooge and run out of the local.

That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?