Diuretic
Permanently confused
- Apr 26, 2006
- 12,653
- 1,413
- Thread starter
- #21
How is it a contradiction? The person has the choice whether or not he/she wishes to join a union. The company has the choice whether or not it wishes to employ union workers.
I didn't say it was, I was asking if it was. Now, I don't want to misinterpret so I asked. The first par reads that the first par are a person's subjective opinion. The second par can be read as a more objective view. If someone holds views in both first and second par then there would be an internal contradiction. If their second par is not about their thoughts but an objective statement about how things are or might be, no problem.
Then I wrote:
And if a company fires workers for walking off the job shouuld the union then be able to boycott that company?
And you answered:
Depends on whether or not the workers are union. Here, the company is unionized or not. Either all employees are unionized, or they are not. If it is a union shop and it fires workers without cause or for reasons in violation of union laws, then of course the union may strike against the company.
If it is an open shop, and fires employees for whatever reason, the union is irrelevant.
I get it now. It was the case here where if only one person was in the union then the union had certain rights of entry, inspection and representation. Due to changed federal laws that has been severely curtailed. I don't want to confuse the discussion but here there are federal and state jurisdictions in labour relations (or as we say, "industrial relations"). Under the state jurisdictions unions can still sign up one person and gain entry. Under the federal legislation, as I said, they have been cut back and so have the conditions of people employed under the federal industrial relations system.
Interesting to see the differences.