You realize that
the Unions BOMBED OIL PIPELINES during the Mid-Con strike don't you? There was sabotage of company property, feuding between the AFL and CIO, violence from both side, accusations of spying by both sides, and an over reaction and illegal acts by the government. I'm not pointing a finger at labor, but both sides acted a fool for sure. I hope you realize that labor unrest in the great depression was not limited to Oklahoma - your bastion of unions in New York saw its fair share of labor unrest in the time period.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/M/MI005.htmlYour basic argument is: Oklahoma is a crappy place to live because in the great depression the state treated unions poorly and because we don't require workers to join a union.
Ignoring the acts of several government officials 75 years ago - please explain to me how requiring workers to pay a union for the privilege of working is supporting workers rights?
You are anti union if you don't force people to join unions. Well damn. Oklahoma is anti-Jesus because we don't require people to be Christian to get a job. We are anti-Boy Scouts because we don't require kids to be Boy Scouts to go to school. We are anti gun because we do not mandate gun ownership for every citizen. I really don't get it, it just doesn't make sense. Feel free to continue to not-explain your position, but I'm being honest.
You keep arguing that the "little people" of Oklahoma are too stupid to figure it out on their own. That the big bad employers have brainwashed them all while the poor little unions (generally a larger national organization than the company) can't figure out how to get their message across because Oklahomans are too stupid. In essence, workers are too stupid in Oklahoma and should be legally required to join a union.
Way to stick up for the working man.
Per your New York/Rome comment. You keep ignoring Detroit and Pittsburgh. Ignoring the fact that the NYC is unique in many other ways (being the largest, among the most corrupt, most unionized, and most capitalist city in the USA) and the fact that a working man in NYC needs to make in excess of $100,000 to be considered middle class, it still doesn't show a correlation. Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle - large non-union bastions of prosperity. Do you not get that there is a failure of correlation there or just ignoring it? Why are the most heavily unionized industries the ones that have been failing for decades? Why do industries with little or no unionization still have high wages (IT comes to mind rapidly)?
I'm not arguing against unions on principle. I am showing and supporting a different perspective. Again - unions can do tons of good. But unions can and do destroy companies to the detriment of current and future workers. John Deere, GM, Chrysler, Ford, American Steel, Bethlehem Steel and on and on . . . tons of long term legacy employers won't be hiring their workers sons (in my home town there were three generations that went from high school to John Deere, but when a bolt turner made $70,000 a year they let him retire and automated the job). I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say companies can abuse labor and labor can abuse companies... but I also don't think you will bother addressing this point no matter how many times I raise it.
Union good. Employers bad. That's the end of it. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid and brainwashed, no matter how reasoned their opinion or open their attempt to discuss it. The union was spied on during the midcon strike but the bombings were no big deal. Union Town New York is awesome, Detroit doesn't count. Union jobs pay more, companies can't be driven out of business. Companies owe their workers more, workers don't owe employers anything. There are two sides to the story and both labor and employers have a roll to play. Either or both being unreasonable is bad for both.
And I won't be thanking anyone for my benefits or my vacation time. I don't have any benefits and my substantial compensation comes from productivity - thus I don't really get paid to take vacation. I think I should walk out until I make what I "deserve," or demand clients pay me at least double my current rate. If I protested a company for going with a different firm because I'd just get laughed at.
And the details of the present case have been well presented. Other bids were chosen in many, many instances. In each instance the Union was made that the local company got the job so they protested the company that ordered the work.
They didn't claim it was a rigged bid or contracting practices weren't followed. They are pretending a union not getting the job makes it a labor dispute.
Personally, I will avoid even having that company bid on any of my clients projects in case they don't win the bid. It isn't worth the risk to give them a chance if it could result in being protested simply because they aren't chosen. Is it because I hate unions? No, I don't hate unions. The potential cost of being protested outweighs the benefit of reviewing their bid.
I'm happy to be corrected if any of my assumptions are wrong. Particular as it related to the SHAME ON people because I have no special knowledge there. I merely advocating my position and looking those with other opinions to do the same.