To: mishedlo who wrote (108432 ) 2/18/2010 2:28:10 AM From: axial 4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555 Hi Mish - Thanks for your reply. As a former union executive, and member of management, I regard neither unions nor management as divine. My primary purpose has been to bring some understanding of organized labor's position - and the law, specifically labor law - to the discussion. I have always supported the proposition that union agreements need to be aligned with new economic realities: that's the truth, and everyone here knows it. However, it seems to many that your position is not anti-union agreement - but simply anti-union . You have yet to acknowledge the law, to recognize that unions have a right to negotiate, and that the process of negotiation offers a remedy for the very agreements about which you are complaining. So despite all the hand-waving and angst, there is a simple remedy: negotiate - hard! If they strike for unreasonable demands, don't give in! Is that so difficult? Hard to understand? I recall only once or twice where you acknowledge that the real blame for these excessive agreements lies with the parties that agreed to them. Be honest. If you are against organized labor, then just say so. Nothing wrong with that; there are many who dislike unions for many reasons. But don't pretend to acknowledge the legitimacy of organized labor on one hand, and deplore their lawful contracts on the other. Or perhaps you don't support the idea of lawful contracts. And before you go off on non-compliance (poor workers) I'll say it again - non-compliance is a two-edged sword, and many of the reasons for poor performance lie with management and union membership both . We should never forget there are millions of union workers here and abroad, working conscientiously in profitable and efficient enterprises. We are, and will be, undergoing incredible change: not just here, but globally. It does no good to adopt simplistic solutions to complex problems - particularly with regard to economics, which at best is a pseudo-science, and at worst a conflation of beliefs no better than an ideology or a religion. In this heated climate, we owe it to ourselves to dispute unreasonable assertions, hyperbole and shoot-from-the-hip solutions. We can't just let them pass, unchallenged. Regards, Jim