|
I am somebody who was formerly a contractor. In my business, I was subject to the arrogance of the union. In my personal life, my friend was a union member, and I got some good insight into the "union" way of things.
I'm sorry. I don't have sympathy for any union member who decides to take a job action and then suffers for that action. I feel that if the umpires in question, as employees of the MLB owners, didn't like what their boss had to instruct about the performance of their jobs, then their option was to leave their chosen jobs and take whatever ramifications came thereof. Because the positions were able to be adequately filled by others, it is obvious that the umpires made a significant error in thinking they were irreplacable.
I am not familiar enough with the terms of the benefits situation to offer an opinion as to whether the umpires should have lost their benefits, but if the "back pay" was for time in which they were involved in their job action, it's my feeling that they should remain pay-less for that period.
I believe that unionization is one of the things that has stifled the American economy, by making people equal, regardless of ability. Seniority should have NO bearing on remuneration for services. Performance should be the only foundation upon which it is laid. In a pure market economy, Darwin's theory of natural selection works perfectly. If an owner of ANY business doesn't do the right thing, his employees will go elsewhere. In turn, he will get less productive employees, devaluing his business. There's a good reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere... it's a system that reduces individual motivation. Unionism is just another form of socialism and should be abolished.
Okay, I'm off my soap box... until I have to respond to the rebuttals I'm sure I'm going to receive.
Lee
|