Quote:
Originally Posted by captexpress
Missed the point big time. The meaning of the post is exactly the opposite, it is about "we".
Not at all. I know exactly what your point is. "We" organized under the RLA and since "they" are unwilling to do so, "we" should change the rules so that "they" can organize at the local level vice the national level currently required. Sure Fred is willing to try underhanded stuff to keep "them" off the property. He tried that with "us". With the money and power of the Teamsters, I find it hard to believe that if the majority wanted "them" to represent "them", they couldn't get it done under the current rules. I've got no problem with every swinging richard on the property joining a union, if "they" want to, but I do have a problem with the idea that if you can't get a majority under the current rules, you change the rules. Oh yeah, when it comes to union stuff, "you" are "Mr. Wonderful". And I mean it.