[steveegg]

The key difference is that companies can struggle on with a new CEO when the old one decides he wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay. With the power of the union to prevent any replacement of them outside of an actual strike (and no permanent replacements in the event of a strike), and the strong-arm tactics you have just glorified (INCLUDING murder), most companies can't long survive when their union decides it wants more money than the company is willing/able to pay.

The fact that these union thugs decided that they would abuse their unique protection under the law and slow things down on the docks so much that the dock owners decided that nothing would be lost by shutting down the docks entirely demonstrates a union that is out of control.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I don't think it's "glorifiying" murder to point out simple facts. I suggest you look up the Ludlow massacre before you conclude that management has clean hands on this issue. The battles between managment and labor were often quite vicious. Thugs come in all sizes and shapes and forms, some wear cheap clothes and bash you with sticks, some wear expensive suits and rob you blind with papers and legal tricks.

Considering that the entire issue at stake here is that old jobs are becoming obsolete due to technology, and new jobs are becoming possible due to technology. The union has NO objection to this. The union STRONGLY objects to the notion that these new jobs are to be non-union.

This really doesn't strike me as being all that unreasonable of a demand by the union.