LogFAQs > #976407052

willythemailboy posted...

Because they can, or at least thought they could.

Except they're not unemployed though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's illegal to terminate the employment of striking employees, isn't it?

rags_alt posted...

I thought unions paid striking workers. That that was part of why they paid union fees..?

Also this. It's not great pay, but it should be enough to get by.

kingdrake2 posted...

i though this too... the union is pocketing all the dues and not paying out.

That wouldn't shock me. Realistically the only difference between most of the national unions and corporations is the unions say they care about their members. The UAW is a pretty good example of that. Before their own PR got its ass in gear I remember seeing an article about the John Deere strike that pointed out it was a local initiative and the strikers were pissed at the union as much as they were their employer. A lot of remarks about them sending them a shit contract to vote on, and the upper levels of the UAW being more interested in gladhanding in DC than actually helping the workers.

I wish I'd saved that article too, because once the UAW got its PR going it got really hard to find and there was a lot out there about "the union fighting for workers".