Originally Posted by Warfish
Implies a direct, point-to-point, corrolation between being in a Union and being fired. That corrollation does not exist.
The reason why Wal-Mart, for example, would replace Union Employees is because the Union would do what Unions do, strike for better benefits (as Wal-Mart's compensation and policies are roundly the target of Pro-Union speakers).
Wal-Mart, in turn, understands that their labor is only worth a very small amount and is easily replaced. As such, when the Strke would occur, that would be when the Union employees would be terminated, not before.
It would be the choice of the Union, not of Wal-Mart, that would create the replacement situation. In point of fact, it is the over-valuation of Wal mart's labor that would be the direct cause of the problem.
It must be pointed out, some labor is simply not worth that much, no matter how much people bemoan not getting a "living wage".
Then we at least have a small point of agreement.
So in Mass. (if I recall your State) you are not required to be in the Teachers Union to Teach in a Public School?
Its my belief that if a WM employee even spoke of organizing they would be let go, far before any strike occurred. But all this is besides the point, I was trying to address your original point that if so few people are union members that means they must not be good. Thats a logic failure right there that you yourself would point out if anyone else every said it.
That is correct. You are not required to belong to the union in Mass. Many young teachers do not for the first few years.