quote:

---

So you feel justified in 'occupying' temp employers because they do not remove temp workers already on site?

---

quote:

---

I can't speak for Polunatic, but my response in a similar situation would be: hell yeah!

---

quote:

---

This kind of agressive and hostile rhetoric is something that keeps many people unsympathetic to the union movement, including those who are required to belong to unions.

---

quote:

---

What do you expect? Those "who are required to belong to unions" also reap the benefits of belonging to unions - a collectively negotiated wage that is much higher than they would be able to obtain in a nonunion setting, access to a grievance and arbitration procedure that protects them from arbitrary discipline or dismissal, better leave and benefits, health and safety and anti-discrimination protections that often far exceed what the law provides, union-sponsored training, etc. I don't think it is too much to ask those people to respect their fellow union members picket line in return.

---

quote:

---

There is no way city management would try to get an entire unionized workforce to force people to cross picket lines. Didn't happen in Toronto, and I would like to see proof that it happened elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
I have been on a number of strikes, yes I do my picket duty, but I refuse to engage in agressive tactics towards people, management or otherwise, who cross the picket line. I think legislation barring the hiring of new temp workers during a labour stoppage is the right way to go, but I have never seen more racist harassment, intimidation and plain ugliness from any group outside of a Republican convention or a Family Forum meeting than when the 'flying squad' joined the fray.

---

I applaud Makwa for keeping his composure in what certainly must have been very difficult situations. I certainly don't think any and all behavior towards scabs is justified (as I mentioned on the other thread, I specifically oppose drowning or lynching, for instance). I also would agree with Makwa's support for "anti-scab" legislation. I would further posit that such legislation is probably the only realistic solution to the perceived mistreatment of scabs by strikers. Because try as we might, it is very difficult to keep a large group of hurt, angry, possibly desperate and hungry strikers as calm and collected as Makwa apparently was, particularly if management has chosen to provoke those strikers by hiring scabs.

[ 10 December 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles in Scabs Part One: Since you insist on framing it in terms of a power struggle, my "big stick" is that I do my job very well and I'd be hard to replace. That's kept me continuously gainfully employed for almost 25 years. That "big stick" is far more valuable to be than any union rep acting on my behalf.

---

So you're the orginal Willy Loman. Good for you. But if corporations insist on being the working examples of large centrally planned entities that they tend to be, then why should workers like you come to the conclusion that it is better to bargain individually ?. Does the whole operation where you work rest squarely on your shoulders or something ?. Or are you pretty much franchise as you're letting on ?. It's not very team player of you, is what I'm saying.

You're defending scabs rights to take food off union worker's tables, but you seem content not to be in the same situation yourself because no one in their right minds would replace you. Maybe they could rpl you if management could figure out what it is you do. Maybe your replacement will be younger and more productive. Or maybe your replacement will be related to someone in management. Ever think about that ?.

[ 10 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
So you're the orginal Willy Loman. Good for you. But if corporations insist on being the working examples of large centrally planned entities that they tend to be, then why should workers like you come to the conclusion that it is better to bargain individually?

---

Because, to be blunt, I am judged on my merit and not my seniority. I can get extra pay and flexible working hours in return for being a top-notch employee. The company couldn't do that (and probably shouldn't do that) for their entire workforce. Some people are great, some are slackers, most are in the middle. What's wrong with that spectrum being reflected in the pay scale?

quote:

---

Does the whole operation where you work rest squarely on your shoulders or something ?

---

No, no, not at all. I'm just a cog in the machine but a very reliable cog with initiative.

quote:

---

It's not very team player of you, is what I'm saying.

---

I'm a team player where it counts: helping my coworkers and caring about the company overall but I'd prefer to do my own bargaining, thanks.

quote:

---

You're defending scabs rights to take food off union worker's tables

---

No, I'm defending people's right not to be called vulgar words. And I'm defending replacement workers who may not agree with strikers' demands.

quote:

---

but you seem content not to be in the same situation yourself because no one in their right minds would replace you. Maybe they could rpl you if management could figure out what it is you do. Maybe your replacement will be younger and more productive.

---

Younger wouldn't help and more productive isn't terribly likely.

quote:

---

Or maybe your replacement will be related to someone in management. Ever think about that ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

Younger wouldn't help and more productive isn't terribly likely.

---

Oh I wouldn't count on that. Young people can be fast studies and always chomping at the bit. You might not know that there are at least ten resumes on file with your employer - all with technical skills and experience from a larger mill or plant and willing to accept lower wages than your current compensation. You might not be as valuable as you think, Chubble.

quote:

---

I have no reason to think about that. If I were terminated unfairly, I'd sue (and likely win) for wrongful dismissal. Good employees have a lot more power than unions give them credit for.

---

Oh ya, if you can afford the stay neck and neck with their lawyers, you might even get a little extra severance pay. That's exactly the way it was before unions during turn of the last century America, Victorian era England and depression era North America. Ten people for every job, and if you didn't like the hiring and firing practices then you could break open the piggy bank and hire a lawyer. But chances for social justice were slim next to nil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
Because, to be blunt, I am judged on my merit and not my seniority. I can get extra pay and flexible working hours in return for being a top-notch employee. The company couldn't do that (and probably shouldn't do that) for their entire workforce. Some people are great, some are slackers, most are in the middle. What's wrong with that spectrum being reflected in the pay scale?

---

Judged by your merit? In a non-union environment, the only opinion about what constitues "merit" is that of the employer, and you have to go along with that. If your employer has decided that "merit" involves treating the boss to a round of golf every Friday, what do you do in that situation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
I have no reason to think about that. If I were terminated unfairly, I'd sue (and likely win) for wrongful dismissal. Good employees have a lot more power than unions give them credit for.

---

I hope it never comes down to that. Do you have the resources to hire your own lawyer and sue your employer, who probably has more resources to spend on lawyers than you do? What would you do for money in the mean time? How would you answer that question "why did you leave your last job?" What would you use for references?

quote:

---

Oh I wouldn't count on that. Young people can be fast studies and always chomping at the bit. You might not know that there are at least ten resumes on file with your employer - all with technical skills and experience from a larger mill or plant and willing to accept lower wages than your current compensation. You might not be as valuable as you think, Chubble.

---

I don't think so, Fidel. Remember, the employer needs a reason to fire me. Replacing me with an unknown quantity isn't a very plausible reason.

quote:

---

Oh ya, if you can afford the stay neck and neck with their lawyers, you might even get a little extra severance pay.

---

No, I'm thinking more along the lines of aggravated damages. After a few years with the firm, they'd probably end up paying over a year's severance, much longer than it would take me to find replacement work.

quote:

---

That's exactly the way it was before unions during turn of the last century America, Victorian era England and depression era North America. Ten people for every job, and if you didn't like the hiring and firing practices then you could break open the piggy bank and hire a lawyer. But chances for social justice were slim next to nil.

---

Yes, but those days are long gone now.

quote:

---

Just make sure not to get sick or need time off

---

I've done both of these with no bad consequences.

quote:

---

or give them any window of opportunity to get rid of you, now that you're earning full pay for whatever it is you and no other person in Canada is capable of doing.

---

I'm not saying that nobody else could do it. I'm saying that it isn't likely that they could easily find someone to do it better.

quote:

---

Because whatever skills you have that don't require a degree or college or journeyman's papers, you can be replaced.

---

Why do you make a distinction? Anybody can be replaced.

quote:

---

You'd be a fool not to realize that.

---

Well, after 25 years, it's hard to find your scenario very scary. Maybe you're the fool?

quote:

---

And they can point to loss of business or slow times as a reason for letting sending you down the road without pension.

---

Yes, I suppose they could but the more important question is why on earth would they?

quote:

---

They can pack up and move to another province and hire any of those ten resumes on file.

---

Of course, just like I could pack up and move to another province and work somewhere else.

quote:

---

And they've likely got more money than you for those high priced lawyers.

---

Sure but legal representation isn't mandatory. And it will never be necessary.

quote:

---

Posted by Chubbles:
I have no reason to think about that. If I were terminated unfairly, I'd sue (and likely win) for wrongful dismissal. Good employees have a lot more power than unions give them credit for.
----------------------------------------------------
Posted by Aristotleded24
I hope it never comes down to that. Do you have the resources to hire your own lawyer and sue your employer, who probably has more resources to spend on lawyers than you do? What would you do for money in the mean time? How would you answer that question "why did you leave your last job?" What would you use for references?

---

To add to Aristotle's comments, you do realize, Chubble, that reinstatement is NOT an available remedy in court for "wrongful dismissal." At most you're going to get a few weeks pay, which isn't really going to justify the cost of hiring the lawyer, even if you think you're guaranteed to win, unless you currently have a very high paying job. In cases of unlawful discrimination (i.e. race, sex, religion), you can get reinstatement or back pay and front pay in lieu of reinstatement, but even then the cost of litigation can be hard to justify if you're not sitting on a surefire goldmine winning case. Having a grievance/arbitration procedure and union representation really makes things much easier, more efficient and more efficacious for the employee.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Judged by your merit? In a non-union environment, the only opinion about what constitues "merit" is that of the employer, and you have to go along with that.

---

Not so. I don't have to go along with anything. A smart boss recognizes a good employee.

quote:

---

If your employer has decided that "merit" involves treating the boss to a round of golf every Friday, what do you do in that situation?

---

Get another job, obviously.

quote:

---

I hope it never comes down to that. Do you have the resources to hire your own lawyer and sue your employer, who probably has more resources to spend on lawyers than you do? What would you do for money in the mean time? How would you answer that question "why did you leave your last job?" What would you use for references?

---

These are hypothetical questions based on a situation I'm not going to face. If I really had to sue a former employer, I could do it myself or enlist the help of a law student or do it through a user-friendly system like the BC Human Rights Tribunal (if appropriate). At job interviews, I'd say I got canned and tell them why, e.g. I wouldn't foot the bill for my ex-employer's golf game on Fridays.

quote:

---

Many of us have seen several examples of good employees being treated very poorly by their employers and the employer gets away with it. The reality of the workplace is that you're valuable only as long as your boss thinks you're valuable.

---

No, my value has to do with my work. I expect my employer to recognize that but my worth doesn't depend on that happening.

quote:

---

Ask people you know if they feel their company values them or how they feel about their bosses.

---

quote:

---

To add to Aristotle's comments, you do realize, Chubble, that reinstatement is NOT an available remedy in court for "wrongful dismissal."

---

I wouldn't want to be reinstated.

quote:

---

At most you're going to get a few weeks pay

---

No, courts are awarding about a month per year of service and much more if the employer's being a dink (to use the legal lingo).

quote:

---

, which isn't really going to justify the cost of hiring the lawyer, even if you think you're guaranteed to win, unless you currently have a very high paying job.

---

Nah, I'm barely into middle-class wages.

quote:

---

Having a grievance/arbitration procedure and union representation really makes things much more easier, efficient and efficacious for the employee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
No, my value has to do with my work. I expect my employer to recognize that but my worth doesn't depend on that happening.

---

And I am happy for you that you are in a workplace envrionment where your boss values your work accordingly. That simply isn't the case with many people. And you suggested that if you're in a bad workplace you can "get another job?" You still haven't told me who to use for references or how to answer the question "why did you leave your last job?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
And I am happy for you that you are in a workplace envrionment where your boss values your work accordingly. That simply isn't the case with many people.

---

And there are many, many reasons for that.

quote:

---

And you suggested that if you're in a bad workplace you can "get another job?" You still haven't told me who to use for references or how to answer the question "why did you leave your last job?"

---

I did above. Honesty usually works pretty well.

quote:

---

You mentioned the Human Rights Tribunal? Things like the Human Rights Tribunals, Labour Boards, etc that you can go to are in place because of pressure from organised labour. Without organised labour, the business community would have such mechanisms dismantled. Businesses fought tooth and nail against such things when they were in the process of being established, and would eliminate them in a heartbeat if they could.

---

Then they deserve a big round of applause for putting those venues into place. Ditto the shortened work week. Ditto child labour laws. Ditto lots of stuff.

Added later: Just wondering about the BCHRT. I've never heard of a unionized employee filing a complaint there. How would business dismantle it?

[ 10 December 2005: Message edited by: Chubbles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
Just wondering about the BCHRT. I've never heard of a unionized employee filing a complaint there. How would business dismantle it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
I'm not saying that nobody else could do it. I'm saying that it isn't likely that they could easily find someone to do it better.
...
Well, after 25 years, it's hard to find your scenario very scary. Maybe you're the fool?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I know someone in Mountain View, California who thought the same way. He worked for a large electronics company about as big as BroadCom. After 19 years as a test engineer, they let him go. They brought in some kids from Spain, fresh out of university with a few co-op experiences under their belts in telecom. They were in, and he was out. And he was making very good money in the U.S., the land of litigation and a shrinking unionized workforce. He was devastated emotionally and financially.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
It would proably happen along the lines of the business lobbies going up to the government they helped elect and saying, "psst, the BCHRT is bad for business, could you please dismantle that for us?" and the government would turn around and say, "okay." (Broad generalisation, but you get the idea.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
Do you think the public would let that fly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
To give but one example of how easily it is to ignore the public on an issue, Paul Martin as Finance Minister cut the transfer payments that kept our health care system running, and provincial governments across the country cut back on health care services, and our health system collapsed. This despite consistent polling stating that health care was a major concern for Canadians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
Yes but Ottawa is a long, long way away. If Gordon Campbell (that sleazebag) declared the BCHRT had to go because it was "bad for business" it would be the start of the revolution.

---

That was one example. From what I've seen, Campbell has been quite successful at implementing initiatives unpopular with the public, same as Harris in Ontario. Even though Ontario Tories are no longer in office, it doesn't look like Dalton has done much to undo the damage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
That was one example. From what I've seen, Campbell has been quite successful at implementing initiatives unpopular with the public

---

I don't know. The absolute kicker for me was the 2010 Olympics and I saw plenty of bumper stickers around here that say "I support the bid." And when Campbell cut disability benefits at the same time, the public mostly supported that.

quote:

---

My point is this: any government, at any level, can get away with a great deal if backed by powerful business lobbies.

---

Well, that's certainly true. And a lot of people have completely given up on politicians for that reason. I've voted Green provincially and federally but I suspect that, where they actually to get elected, they'd become like the rest of them.

I don't know if it's just the people around me, or more of a general trend in society, but many people are just rejecting politics, consumerism, capitalism, etc. They get what they need to out of the system (like wages) but pursue their own dreams. This society isn't working very well for lots of us.

For years and years, I used to listen to my parents rant and rave about the Socreds. Then we finally had an NDP government and it was just same old, same old. That was kind of an eye opener for a lot of us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:

I'm sorry for your friend. Why did they decide to let him go? I hope he got a good severance package.

---

He was let go because they realized they could train university grads from another country to do the same job. It might take them anywhere from two to five years to bring them up to speed. Severance pay helped, but he'd rather be working his job instead of some kids from Spain who don't know what student loan debt is and have never paid taxes in the U.S. until now.

quote:

---

However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my situation. I've never argued that employers can't be bad. I'm just saying that some employees are doing just fine without unions, that's all.

---

quote:

---

He was let go because they realized they could train university grads from another country to do the same job.

---

But why did the employer make that decision? Were the new workers paid less? Were they better trained? Why do you assume that your employee friend must have been lily white and the employer pure evil?

quote:

---

Severance pay helped, but he'd rather be working his job instead of some kids from Spain who don't know what student loan debt is and have never paid taxes in the U.S. until now.

---

Does the fact that they were foreigners bother you as much as it sounds like it does? You keep saying "kids from Spain" as if you mean it as a derogatory term.

quote:

---

Well excuse me, but you're the one who's horned-in on this thread and still haven't made a decent case for scab workers.

---

No, I "horned-in" to enquire if replacement workers were always, absolutely and necessarily in the wrong. My counter-example was what if a union was making unreasonable demands? What if the employer was being unfairly harmed by a strike? In those circumstances, would a replacement worker still be the target of your hostility? And, if so, why? You still haven't answered my question.

quote:

---

If it wasn't for defensive anti-union rhetoric, backpedalling and being apologetic that out of millions of workers, you have had the good fortune never to have had a labour dispute in 25 years and so therefore what's the point to this discussion, then I think you're the obstructive one. Clearly you're the exception.

---

I'm not one out of millions of workers. There are tons of satisfied workers. There are also tons of abused employers whose workers shirk and take advantage of them. I just question your assumption that unions are always in the right.

quote:

---

In fact by your own admissions here, I don't even think you're qualified to comment.

---

I'm not qualified to ask you not to compare "scabs" to pedophiles? Only a sophisticate such as yourself could make such a judgment? Give me a break.

quote:

---

Aren't there any "I'm alright Jack" threads you could haunt, Chub ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
My counter-example was what if a union was making unreasonable demands? What if the employer was being unfairly harmed by a strike? In those circumstances, would a replacement worker still be the target of your hostility? And, if so, why? You still haven't answered my question.

---

Unions generally don't go into labour negotiations trying to screw over their employers. If an employer honestly felt that they were being unfairly harmed, they can wait for the case to go in front of an impartial arbitrator and make their case there.

Unions don't go on strikes for fun. A union will call for a strike vote if they feel there is no other way to negotiate a fair settlement. A strike has to be approved by the rank and file by vote, and the rank and file has the most to lose during a strike, so that isn't something they take lightly.

The whole purpose of a strike is to grab the employer's attention by making it impossible for any work to get done in the hopes that things will improve for the workers. The reason union workers resent replacement workers so much is because the union workers are risking their paycheques so the replacement doesn't have to settle for bad conditions. Replacement workers undermine that, and the dispute drags on.

Which leads me to my next point. Is the union always right in every situation? No, unions are composed of fallible human beings. However, where time is a factor is that time is on the side of the employer. If the employer can drag out a labour dispute, that allows the employer to basically starve the union into submission as opposed to negotiating with union leadership to find a solution all parties can live with.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
The reason union workers resent replacement workers so much is because the union workers are risking their paycheques so the replacement doesn't have to settle for bad conditions.

---

That's not how it appears, judging from Fidel's missives. Presumably, pedophiles wouldn't be entitled to good working conditions.

quote:

---

Which leads me to my next point. Is the union always right in every situation? No, unions are composed of fallible human beings. However, where time is a factor is that time is on the side of the employer. If the employer can drag out a labour dispute, that allows the employer to basically starve the union into submission as opposed to negotiating with union leadership to find a solution all parties can live with.

---

But what if the union's demands are unreasonable? Why should a company be brought to its knees? And why is a replacement worker who may be very happy with the present working conditions automatically a figure to be reviled?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
But why did the employer make that decision? Were the new workers paid less? Were they better trained? Why do you assume that your employee friend must have been lily white and the employer pure evil?

---

In fact, BH-1 work visas were a big issue in the States after 2001 or so. I was there in MV on a TN Visa and was a first-hand observer myself.

And no, they were not better trained. That part comes with the job. And yes, He's "lily white", like you're presenting yourself here to be. What's so hard to believe about that, Chub ?.

quote:

---

Does the fact that they were foreigners bother you as much as it sounds like it does? You keep saying "kids from Spain" as if you mean it as a derogatory term.

---

What derogatory term did I use ?. Are you imagining things already ?. Perhaps you'd better put in for early retirement there, Chub. You're sounding a tad irrational.

quote:

---

My counter-example was what if a union was making unreasonable demands?

---

Unreasonable demands? You mean like a living wage to?. Have you been to the grocery store or paid taxes or bought any large ticket items since you started your fantastic career 25 years ago ?. Where have you been hiding ?. Anyway ?.

quote:

---

What if the employer was being unfairly harmed by a strike? In those circumstances, would a replacement worker still be the target of your hostility? And, if so, why? You still haven't answered my question.

---

There are all sorts of anti-worker legslation to help out corporations in the event of bad economic times - everything from pension contribution holidays to having stockpiled product in advance of contract talks. The average worker can holdout about three months during typical strike conditions. The employer enjoys obvious bargaining leverages from the start, but hiring scabs is certainly done in bad faith and is almost never an indication that the company is preparing for bankruptcy.

quote:

---

I'm not one out of millions of workers. There are tons of satisfied workers. There are also tons of abused employers whose workers shirk and take advantage of them. I just question your assumption that unions are always in the right.

---

And the U.S. and Canada own the highest rates of child poverty, one-two with the U.S. nurturing the highest rates of infant mortality among developed nations. In fact, there are tons of workers across North America who are not faring very well at all while corporate profits are unprecedented and deferred corporate taxes go unpaid still.

[quoteI'm not qualified to ask you not to compare "scabs" to pedophiles? Only a sophisticate such as yourself could make such a judgment? Give me a break.[/quote]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chubbles:
But what if the union's demands are unreasonable? Why should a company be brought to its knees? And why is a replacement worker who may be very happy with the present working conditions automatically a figure to be reviled?

And (to get back to an older point) what about seniority over merit? That's the biggest drawback to the union movement as it harms both good employees and their employers.

---

What do you mean by unreasonable? As for working conditions, you can always find someone who will settle for bad working conditions. What if I went to your boss and said I'd be willing to do your job for half of minimum wage and was willing to work however many hours your employer wanted me without asking for any overtime? Would you still accept me being "happy" with such working conditions if it put you out of work? What would your opinion of me be?

quote:

---

Not so. I don't have to go along with anything. A smart boss recognizes a good employee.

---

A smart one perhaps. But there are a whole lot of stupid ones.

The other thing is...what happens when the management over top of you changes? I've seen lots of folks hitch their wagon to a particular management team. Then a new management team comes in...maybe they're assholes or "bean counters" and decide to "clean house"...and they decide that you'e one of the folks that needs to be "cleaned out".

Such are the consequences of unfettered capitalism. Unions may be obnoxious sometimes, but the behaviour of management in the absense of unions proves that we need them. And scabs undermine their power.

[ 11 December 2005: Message edited by: Sineed ]

For instance:

I went through a strike that involved various "essential services" agreements. I'm a health care professional and belong to a different union than the one that was on strike. So I had to cross the picket line each day, respecting whatever delays the picket captain insisted upon. I did my own job only, and did not do struck work. Simple for me.

But the supervisor of the unit was presented with a list of what was essential, and what wasn't. The union said that filing medical charts was not essential. But...if the doctor can't find someone's medical file because they are all piled up everywhere, there could be medical repercussions. Our patients have substance abuse issues, and often Hep C, sometimes HIV/AIDS. So the supervisor, who is in the same union as me, and is not management, and as such is not allowed to do struck work, filed the medical charts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic:
It is not reasonable (or legal in Ontario) for workers who are not on strike themselves to strike for someone else.

---

What's unreasonable about workers across the board wobbling for fellow workers in another sector of the economy ?. Political conservatives in the west spoke fondly of Polish solidarity in 1980. Imagine hundreds of thousands of workers across Canada showing a little protest of our own. ehh, goose and gander etcetera.

[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I was told by some of the zealots that I was a scab just for crossing the picket liine, even though I was in a different union that was not on strike, and I did only my own work. The picket captain said that as a union member, I shouldn't cross a picket line at all (even though I would be subject to disciplinary action if I didn't). She told me I should call in sick, or make it a health and safety issue, etc.

---

That's always a dicey situation...when you have multiple unions working for the same employer. The employer gets to play "divide and conquer". I've been there...done that ...and been disciplined for refusing to cross a picket line.

The thing to do is to be as supportive as possible of your fellow employees in the other union as you can.

Its true that the labour movement would be much stronger if union members in multi-union workplaces all supported each other "to the max".

But...its not always possible. Some unions are stronger than others, Some memberships are stronger than others.

Short of refusing to cross a line and subjecting yourself to disciplinary action you can always do other things.

Take up a collection amongst your co-workers and buy the picketers some coffee and donuts. Keep the strikers informed as to what management is up to inside the workplace.

You don't necessarily have to show up to work "on time"...tell the boss you were delayed getting to work by the picketers...and have a nice friendly chat with them.

Just don't go barrelling through the line at full speed and keep on good terms with the folks in the other union. You might just need their support some day.

[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

I've been there...done that ...and been disciplined for refusing to cross a picket line.

---

quote:

---

Take up a collection amongst your co-workers and buy the picketers some coffee and donuts. Keep the strikers informed as to what management is up to inside the workplace.

You don't necessarily have to show up to work "on time"...tell the boss you were delayed getting to work by the picketers...and have a nice friendly chat with them.

Just don't go barrelling through the line at full speed and keep on good terms with the folks in the other union. You might just need their support some day.

---