The San Francisco Chronicle's largest employees' union has approved a tentative labor agreement that allows the newspaper to lay off workers without regard to seniority and implement other cost-cutting measures.
In other words, for the union to continue to exist, it has turned its back on those it promised to defend. Those who have paid the most union dues. Those who have been most loyal.
Union members passed the agreement Saturday by a 10-1 margin...
Would that 10% of nay-sayers be considered, within the newspaper business, the 'top 10%'?
Shouldn't that top 10% 'give back' to the rest - to those who have not been as 'lucky'?
Shouldn't that top 10% give back, 'for the greater good'?
Is it still called a "union" when it turns its back on 10% of its members?
Do the 90% that voted for layoffs consider themselves 'Mainstream'?
Will there be a surge of criticism for unions by those laid off?
Will they tell us they were mistaken to have put so much faith into a flawed system that, in the end, only rewards the union management at the expense of the workers?
Will there be any rash comments that suggest unions are a form of modern-day slavery?
Did the union members have the option to skip layoffs and instead drop the union and negotiate salaries based on performance and true market rates?
No comments:
Post a Comment