Who Will Cave First?

[JungleClone]

Well, here it is Friday morning, May 20, and a strike looms as a possibility as soon as this afternoon. My personal feeling is that a T/A will be reached within the next several hours. I'd like to believe that neither side is foolish enough to allow this to come down to the judge's ruling, which we all know will side with the company.

I've heard the few remaining sticking points are:

1) IAM pension replacement
2) The Company's insistence on the ability to eliminate full-time employees at hubs and line stations.
3) The Company's insistence on being able to unilaterally bypass seniority.

Not sure if these are all true, but it's what I've been hearing from a couple of folks supposedly in "the know".

Anyone else care to share what they've heard are the remaining obstacles to an agreement?

Of course, even if a T/A is reached, there's no guarantee that the membership will vote for it. Same thing with AMFA's agreement. Although in the case of AMFA, it appears that is the very best they could get and I'm sure it will pass by a slim majority.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'd like to believe that neither side is foolish enough to allow this to come down to the judge's ruling, which we all know will side with the company.

[post="271415"][/post]​

Either way, whether you accept it or a judge rules on it the result will be in the companies favor. However if you agree to terms then there is nothing that you can do about it until at least 2010. If the Judge imposes new terms you have options, you can strike.

So you agree that means if UAL makes a full recovery and goes on to make record profits that you are still stuck with the deal. If the judge is too harsh he has to worry that you may strike.

Better off with the Judge, put the onus on him. Throw it right back in his lap by voting NO. Voting yes puts all the blame on you. The company will say "Your union got you this deal now you have to live with it", and the union will say "You ratified it, its not our fault". Of course you may not be stuck with this till 2010, you are only stuck with it if the company does well, if they continue to have hard times they can always come back for more, and they will.

 

[herkav8r]

Alaska union rejects airline offer

Alaska Airlines baggage handlers voted overwhelmingly to reject management's latest contract offer, creating a showdown that threatens the jobs of about 500 workers in Seattle.

In January, the company warned that it might hire an outside vendor to do the work in Seattle. Company executives now must decide whether to carry out that threat.

Management says the offer was the company's final proposal before it decides whether to outsource the work.

Voting ended Thursday night. The union that represents the baggage handlers, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 143, announced the outcome yesterday.

Eighty-five percent of those voting said no to the management offer. The union did not disclose the count but said 85 percent opposed the proposal


The next day: 472 suddenly laid off
Alaska Airlines stuns union baggage handlers with surprise move and outsourced their jobs.

I pretty sure we can replace Alaska with United and see the same outcome.

 

[Bob Owens]

Alaska union rejects airline offer

Alaska Airlines baggage handlers voted overwhelmingly to reject management's latest contract offer, creating a showdown that threatens the jobs of about 500 workers in Seattle.

In January, the company warned that it might hire an outside vendor to do the work in Seattle. Company executives now must decide whether to carry out that threat.

Management says the offer was the company's final proposal before it decides whether to outsource the work.

Voting ended Thursday night. The union that represents the baggage handlers, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 143, announced the outcome yesterday.

Eighty-five percent of those voting said no to the management offer. The union did not disclose the count but said 85 percent opposed the proposal
The next day:  472 suddenly laid off
Alaska Airlines stuns union baggage handlers with surprise move  and outsourced their jobs.

I pretty sure we can replace Alaska with United and see the same outcome.

[post="271434"][/post]​

Oh really with who?

While it might not be that hard to find 500 people in a short amount of time that can pass the security check-no felony record, legal residence in the US etc that will work under the conditions they are offering its much harder as the number gets bigger. The more people you need to replace the harder it gets to replace them. Lets not forget that the airline industry no longer has the reputation it did in the 70s and 80s. Bankrupcties, mergers etc do not have that much appeal to workers. There arent that many qualified people unemployed yet.

Now with Alsaka what would happen if the other unions turned around and honored the pickets of those displaced? Its even harder to replace mechanics, Flight attendants and pilots.

 

[ualdriver]

I suspect that a "last minute" agreement will be reached as well, for several reasons. One, they don't want their future to placed upon the mercy of the court. Two, I doubt the IAM wants to lose about 20,000 members, which is what will happen if a strike is successful. Three, I know it's really cool to huff and puff and to bring the Channel 9 news cameras in to show people that they're making those neato strike signs with all those catchy strike phrases, but from what I have seen on the line, the average IAM member wants a settlement, not huffing and puffing. Four, the IAM has had months to negotiate a settlement, every other union on the property has, and they owe their membership the best negotiated deal they can get instead of a trip to the unemployment line.

Can they strike if the judge imposes a contract today? That's the question of the hour and despite the self proclaimed "legal professionals" on this forum NO ONE knows the answer to it. It's all pure speculation if someone states otherwise. We'll have to wait and see how that one plays out.

 

[synchronicity]

Can they strike if the judge imposes a contract today?  That's the question of the hour and despite the self proclaimed "legal professionals" on this forum NO ONE knows the answer to it.  It's all pure speculation if someone states otherwise.  We'll have to wait and see how that one plays out.

[post="271447"][/post]​

I will say with certainty that they can strike!

Whether or not such a strike is legal is a different matter entirely! 😛 As is (obviously) the possible legal actions that could be taken if they do strike.

-synchronicity

 

[Bob Owens]

I suspect that a "last minute" agreement will be reached as well, for several reasons.  One, they don't want their future to placed upon the mercy of the court.  Two, I doubt the IAM wants to lose about 20,000 members, which is what will happen if a strike is successful.  Three, I know it's really cool to huff and puff and to bring the Channel 9 news cameras in to show people that they're making those neato strike signs with all those catchy strike phrases, but from what I have seen on the line, the average IAM member wants a settlement, not huffing and puffing.  Four, the IAM has had months to negotiate a settlement, every other union on the property has, and they owe their membership the best negotiated deal they can get instead of a trip to the unemployment line.

Can they strike if the judge imposes a contract today?  That's the question of the hour and despite the self proclaimed "legal professionals" on this forum NO ONE knows the answer to it.  It's all pure speculation if someone states otherwise.  We'll have to wait and see how that one plays out.

[post="271447"][/post]​

Show me something, anything, that says that the workers can not strike if the terms of their contract are changed without the consent of the union.

If Judges had that right then why havent they already said so?

I agree that they can abrogate the contract, thats clearly written and terms have to be met, but once abrogated can he force any other creditor to continue to do business with the airline under the terms the airline dictates? If the judge can force workers to accept new terms and not allow them to strike then he could tell the oil companies who have more than doubled the price they charge for fuel over the last few years to sell the airlines fuel at 1 penny a gallon.

Lets face it, the employees have already given several rounds of concessions only to see the fuel companies raise the price they charge for what they provide the airline. All the concessions they made so far went straight into higher fuel costs. How could the Judge meet the reasonable demand criteria of 1113 when the fuel companies doubled the price they charge? Do the owners of fuel enjoy more rights than labor does to their property? If he cant force the oil companies to give the airlines fuel at a reasonable cost then how can he force workers, who have already met the companies demands on several occasions , to continue to provide their product?

Just as the oil companies could argue that their costs have gone up so can workers.

Judges are supposed to work within the framework of the law, not just make things up as they go along. He has to pull up something that would allow him to rule that the workers can not strike, once again, if he can take workers labor, which is their property to sell, that would give him the right to take any one elses property for the benifit of the Bankrupt company . Like I said earlier the workers have rights, provided through the RLA.

The RLA is clear. If the company changes rates of pay or other conditions that fall under the realm of a major dispute the workers can strike. The restrictions to self help are in the RLA, not the BK code. Those restrictions are based upon the fact that a contract that was negotiated between the two parties is in place. The BK code allows for the company to get out of the contract without going through the NMB, however other terms of the RLA are still in effect. So, if the contract has been altered,or abrogated, they can strike.

Ive shown you what says they can strike. Show me something that says they cant.

 

[Cosmo]

If he can't force the oil companies to give the airlines fuel at a reasonable cost then how can he force workers, who have already met the companies demands on several occasions, to continue to provide their product?

You're absolutely right, Bob, he can't do that. But I would be very careful about wanting to be on a level playing field with the oil companies. After all, while ExxonMobil (for example) doesn't have to sell fuel to United at a price that it rejects, it also cannot put up a picket line at airports to keep Shell (again, for example only) from supplying fuel to United at that price. So the proper analogy would be that workers could not be forced to offer their labor to United at a rate of pay that they reject, thus either resigning or retiring, but they (or their union) couldn't call it a strike to prevent United from hiring workers who would agree to work for that rate of pay.

Conversely, if the RLA allows the union to call a strike if the contract is abrogated (and if the bankruptcy judge agrees), then the workers actually have more rights than the oil companies.

... if he can take workers labor, which is their property to sell, that would give him the right to take any one elses property for the benifit of the Bankrupt company.

I have emphasized what I believe is the key point here. As you say, it is the worker's right to sell their property (i.e., their labor), not the union's to sell or withhold. So while a worker can't be forced to offer their labor to United at a price that they reject, any more than an oil company could be forced to offer their product at a price they reject, the judge could nonetheless rule that the union can't strike because the right to sell or withhold labor belongs to the individual worker, not the union.

 

[synchronicity]

You're absolutely right, Bob, he can't do that. But I would be very careful about wanting to be on a level playing field with the oil companies. After all, while ExxonMobil (for example) doesn't have to sell fuel to United at a price that it rejects, it also cannot put up a picket line at airports to keep Shell (again, for example only) from supplying fuel to United at that price. So the proper analogy would be that workers could not be forced to offer their labor to United at a rate of pay that they reject, thus either resigning or retiring, but they (or their union) couldn't call it a strike to prevent United from hiring workers who would agree to work for that rate of pay.

Conversely, if the RLA allows the union to call a strike if the contract is abrogated (and if the bankruptcy judge agrees), then the workers actually have more rights than the oil companies.
I have emphasized what I believe is the key point here. As you say, it is the worker's right to sell their property (i.e., their labor), not the union's to sell or withhold. So while a worker can't be forced to offer their labor to United at a price that they reject, any more than an oil company could be forced to offer their product at a price they reject, the judge could nonetheless rule that the union can't strike because the right to sell or withhold labor belongs to the individual worker, not the union.

[post="271493"][/post]​

Sorry, Cosmo. Bob has already shown that he doesn't quite understand the difference between striking and quitting.

-synchronicity

 

[ualdriver]

Show me something, anything, that says that the workers can not strike if the terms of their contract are changed without the consent of the union.

[post="271458"][/post]​

I can't Bob without pulling it out of my a$$ like you're doing! I'm not a lawyer, neither are you. You're making assumptions abou the RLA and bankruptcy law that teams of lawyers at every union at UAL who DO fully understand the RLA and bankruptcy law are still trying to figure out. You may be right, you may be wrong. But I certainly wouldn't "bet the farm" on your assumptions.

It looks like the U.S. District court will be making a ruling on this soon. I'll see what they have to say rather than what Bob Owens has to say.

 

[synchronicity]

Show me something, anything, that says that the workers can not strike if the terms of their contract are changed without the consent of the union.

If Judges had that right then why havent they already said so?

I agree that they can abrogate the contract, thats clearly written and terms have to be met, but once abrogated can he force any other creditor to continue to do business with the airline under the terms the airline dictates? If the judge can force workers to accept new terms and not allow them to strike then he could tell the oil companies who have more than doubled the price they charge for fuel over the last few years to sell the airlines fuel at 1 penny a gallon.

Lets face it, the employees have already given several rounds of concessions only to see the fuel companies raise the price they charge for what they provide the airline. All the concessions they made so far went straight into higher fuel costs. How could the Judge meet the reasonable demand criteria of 1113 when the fuel companies doubled the price they charge? Do the owners of fuel enjoy more rights than labor does to their property? If he cant force the oil companies to give the airlines fuel at a reasonable cost then how can he force workers, who have already met the companies demands on several occasions , to continue to provide their product?

Just as the oil companies could argue that their costs have gone up so can workers.

Judges are supposed to work within the framework of the law, not just make things up as they go along. He has to pull up something that would allow him to rule that the workers can not strike, once again, if he can take workers labor, which is their property to sell, that would give him the right to take any one elses property for the benifit of the Bankrupt company . Like I said earlier the workers have rights, provided through the RLA.

The RLA is clear. If the company changes rates of pay or other conditions that fall under the realm of a major dispute the workers can strike. The restrictions to self help are in the RLA, not the BK code. Those restrictions are based upon the fact that a contract that was negotiated between the two parties is in place. The BK code allows for the company to get out of the contract without going through the NMB, however other terms of the RLA are still in effect. So, if the contract has been altered,or abrogated, they can strike.

Ive shown you what says they can strike. Show me something that says they cant.

[post="271458"][/post]​

Well, how about these snippets from actual attorneys rather than a mechanic with an agenda who'd like the world to conform with his wishes:

(quoted from http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1115416032.html . Emphasis added)
====================================================
"You're entering into a twilight zone of jurisprudence," said Thomas Salerno, chairman of the financial reorganization practice group at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. "It's really interesting interplay between the bankruptcy law and federal labor law."

Salerno, who previously represented parties in United's bankruptcy, said that for the unions to strike legally, they must obey the federal Railway Labor Act, which permits a walkout only after mediation fails to resolve a dispute.

The act, written in the 1920s, safeguards interstate travel by restricting workers' right to disrupt it, he said.

It is unclear whether the restrictions apply if a collective bargaining agreement is altered or nullified against the will of the workers.

"A strike is the legally equivalent response to the rejections of our contract," the AFA said in a recent statement.

Experts also disagree over whether an employee group can strike against a company in Chapter 11.

Robert Siegel, an attorney with O'Melveny & Myers, said there is little precedent on the matter, but he thinks a judge could halt a strike called in response to a court ruling.

"I think the bankruptcy judge has the authority to do it," Siegel said. "My view is that would be an illegal strike that should be subject to a court injunction."

Partners in Siegel's law practice represent some UAL interests, although Siegel himself has no relationship with the carrier, he said.

Other lawyers believe that if the unions satisfy the RLA mediation requirements but fail to reach consensual deals, their right to strike is practically invincible.

"The federal law says workers have a right to strike," said Lowell Peterson, labor attorney with Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein. "There has to be some reason why they can't strike."

The government intervened in pilots' strikes in the late 1990s at American Airlines and Northwest Airlines. In both cases, the president, acting under the authority of the RLA, demanded further mediation.
=====================================================
Ya see how that works, Bob? There's a gray area between the RLA and traditional labor law, and bankruptcy. I might add, again that this means that labor is in a worse situation when their employer is in bankruptcy, as I was saying...oh, 30 months ago or so, but that would be injuring a deceased equine.

Oh, and nobody is FORCING labor to do business with the airline. As has been pointed out already, an individual laborer can quit. In fact, the entire workforce can quit if they want to. But that means the airline is free to hire whoever they want to replace the former workers, and most if not all of the special safeguards that go along with collective bargaining agreements would be gone. If you quit, you quit. I think Cosmo's already done a good job of pointing out the difference between quitting and striking.

And FWIW, in bankruptcy creditors try to cut whatever deals they can, or they can simply let the process take its course and get whatever they can depending on the precedence of their claim and the value of the property securing their loan (if any). Guess what, often creditors get a fraction (as in "less than half", since you're hung up on 99%+) of what they had originally contracted for. Company won't pay, property securing interest is worth a lot less.

As for oil companies, I'm no fan of them either. But have you noticed that, although the airline is still paying for fuel, they're taking steps to use less of it? Maybe because (guess what?) they can't afford to spend so much on fuel? So they try to use as little of it as possible?

But back to the main point, namely that in spite of what you'd like to believe, there is in fact a gray area in labor law regarding the legality of striking in this situation. And that gray area is acknowledged by actual attorneys who work in that field. But I know, you know far more than they do on the topic. Just like you were so accurate with your interpretations of BK law 30+ months ago, right? 😳

-synchronicity

(FWIW, my gut instinct is that the workers would have a right to strike, but I'm also aware that this isn't my legal area of expertise)

 

[aafsc]

Alaska union rejects airline offer

Alaska Airlines baggage handlers voted overwhelmingly to reject management's latest contract offer, creating a showdown that threatens the jobs of about 500 workers in Seattle.

In January, the company warned that it might hire an outside vendor to do the work in Seattle. Company executives now must decide whether to carry out that threat.

Management says the offer was the company's final proposal before it decides whether to outsource the work.

Voting ended Thursday night. The union that represents the baggage handlers, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 143, announced the outcome yesterday.

Eighty-five percent of those voting said no to the management offer. The union did not disclose the count but said 85 percent opposed the proposal
The next day: 472 suddenly laid off
Alaska Airlines stuns union baggage handlers with surprise move and outsourced their jobs.

I pretty sure we can replace Alaska with United and see the same outcome.

[post="271434"][/post]​

1. Alaska is a much much smaller airline when compared to UAL. Can you imagine trying to line up about 9,000-10,000 scabs to cover their ramp operations at SFO, DEN, ORD, and IAD? They would have to go through background and security checks, have airport badges and ramp drivers training done, then they would have to go through class to learn how to do the job, then they would have to go thru hazardous goods and dangereous goods training which is mandated by the governement. This will take a lot of time. Once they get onto the ramp, do you think they will know what to do? No, they will be clueless.

2. Not only would UAL have to replace the rampers but also the ticket agents and res agents because they are also represented by the IAM. Agents have to be knowledgable about hundreds of computer entries for things like ticketing, reservations, rebookings etc. I highly doubt that they can replace thousands of these people overnight.

In summation, an IAM strike would be devistating to UAL. They would have much difficulty with ticketing and reservations and getting their planes loaded and dispatched. Also Delle-Femine of AMFA says that they will honor a picket line. If this were to happen then UA would have additional problems associated with maintanence. So your comparison of UA to AS is wishful thinking on your part. However, in my opinion, the IAM will bring back something that resembles the US deal and it will narrowly pass. Who will you blame for UA's problems when ramp and ticketing people are working for less than market rates with crappy benefits with no pensions no retiree healthcare and when most of their jobs are farmed out to minimum wage contractors with no benefits? And in my opinion, they can strike if the judge throws out their contract. They did at CO in the early 1980s when Lorenzo had a judge throw theirs out. And the changes in bankruptcy law changes the steps before an abrogation not after. So since the CO people struck after their abrogation, thus setting a legal precedent, it appears the people here can also do it.

 

[Bob Owens]

You're absolutely right, Bob, he can't do that.  But I would be very careful about wanting to be on a level playing field with the oil companies.  After all, while ExxonMobil (for example) doesn't have to sell fuel to United at a price that it rejects, it also cannot put up a picket line at airports to keep Shell (again, for example only) from supplying fuel to United at that price.  So the proper analogy would be that workers could not be forced to offer their labor to United at a rate of pay that they reject, thus either resigning or retiring, but they (or their union) couldn't call it a strike to prevent United from hiring workers who would agree to work for that rate of pay.

Conversely, if the RLA allows the union to call a strike if the contract is abrogated (and if the bankruptcy judge agrees), then the workers actually have more rights than the oil companies.
I have emphasized what I believe is the key point here.  As you say, it is the worker's right to sell their property (i.e., their labor), not the union's to sell or withhold. 

[post="271493"][/post]​

Well you are missing a few key points here. First of all the oil companies are not forced into "perpetual contracts" that force them to sell their product at a price that was negotiated at a prior date until the NMB declares an impass in negotiations. So no, labor does not enjoy more rights and picketing is a form of free speech, is there any law that stops Exxon/Mobil from setting up pickets if they buy from Shell? I'd like to see it. Striking and picketing is one of the few things that the act affords us, hardly a great bargain considering the fact that otherwise it is very restrictive.

If you want to abolish the RLA its fine by me but you should keep in mind that prior to the RLA disruptions were common. In fact under the Railroads any group of workers along the line could shut things down. Because of this the RLA was set up with strict rules on organizing, representation and bargaining. 99% of the rules benifit the carrier. I for one would love to be able to negotiate our own contract for workers here in New York and join the union of our choosing and let those who live in Tulsa get their own union and their own contract. The RLA forces us to be in the same union as them, even though in reality we have more in common with the baggage handlers here in New York due to the cost of living.

So while a worker can't be forced to offer their labor to United at a price that they reject, any more than an oil company could be forced to offer their product at a price they reject, the judge could nonetheless rule that the union can't strike because the right to sell or withhold labor belongs to the individual worker, not the union.

Well actually I believe that you are wrong. I believe if you check case law courts have ruled the opposite, the right to sell is the unions, which in theory is the collective property of the members. Thats why unions can change contract language without membership approval. In theory the members can later remove the officers if they dont like what they did. Also, if all the workers quit at one time the judge could hold the union responsible. In the APA case the judge ordered the union to tell its members to end a job action, the union put out a message to the members to stop the job action but the Judge fined the union anyway.

 

[Bob Owens]

ualdriver,May 20 2005, 06:17 PM]
I can't Bob without pulling it out of my a$$ like you're doing! I'm not a lawyer, neither are you.


You dont have to be a lawyer to go to the NMB site and read the RLA and the process to self help. Nor do you have to be a lawyer to read sect 1113.


You're making assumptions about the RLA and bankruptcy law that teams of lawyers at every union at UAL who DO fully understand the RLA and bankruptcy law are still trying to figure out.

Does anyone, even a lawyer fully understand the law? I doubt it.

You may be right, you may be wrong. But I certainly wouldn't "bet the farm" on your assumptions.

It looks like the U.S. District court will be making a ruling on this soon. I'll see what they have to say rather than what Bob Owens has to say.

Well if you have that much faith in the federal court system to do what is right then obviously you have not read much history, or you are rich. I'd rather read the arguements put forward. As Frederick Douglass said "Power concedes nothing without demand, never has, never will". With the weakness displayed by the labor movement and the fact that ruling in favor of the company could only benifit the judges who are more likely to have their portfolios positively affected by screwing over the workers its more likely that no matter what the law said they would try to find a way to stop the workers from striking. So in my opinion the courts are not neutral and they will not be trying to determine what the intent was of these laws but rather a way to help the airlines get what they want.

The court knows that if they rule that they can not strike that they wont, because none of the leaders have the cajones to strike in defiance of the court. The leaders have no balls even though they know that all the gains won in the past were won by defying the courts thus forcing the government to enact fairer laws or face massive disruptions. The courts are likely to rule in favor of the company then say take it to the next higher court if you dont like it. This way it gets dragged out for years and even if it gets to the Supreme court and overturned, years have gone by and the company won anyway. Thats why working people and their unions can not rely on the courts. Legally, if its overturned years later they will claim "The system worked, its fair because you won", however in real life, outside the courtroom, on the shop floor they lost.

 

[synchronicity]

ualdriver,May 20 2005, 06:17 PM]
Well if you have that much faith in the federal court system to do what is right then obviously you have not read much history, or you are rich. I'd rather read the arguements put forward. As Frederick Douglass said "Power concedes nothing without demand, never has, never will". With the weakness displayed by the labor movement and the fact that ruling in favor of the company could only benifit the judges who are more likely to have their portfolios positively affected by screwing over the workers its more likely that no matter what the law said they would try to find a way to stop the workers from striking. Because the court knows that if they rule that they can not strike that they wont, because none of the leaders have the cajones to strike in defiance of the court, they are likely to rule in favor of the company then say take it to the next higher court if you dont like it. This way it gets dragged out for years and even if it gets to the Supreme court and overturned, years have gone by and the company won anyway. Thats why working people and their unions can not rely on the courts. Legally, if its overturned years later they will claim "The system worked, its fair because you won", however in real life, outside the courtroom, on the shop floor they lost.

[post="271628"][/post]​

Ya see, Bob, that's what I love about you, that when you get down to it if a legal decision or something else goes against the the way you think it would, it's just more evidence that "the system" is crooked and rigged against the Working Man. Which is fine and all, lord knows that there's aspects of "Socialism" that I think are postiives for society as a whole (social safety nets, good, for example) and personally am pretty pissed at seeing the current administration believe that an unfettered free market provides the best answer to everything. (It doesn't. Unless one thinks that stores should be able to sell rotten meat, albeit cheaper than good meat, giving one the freedom to buy cheaper food that will kill you. But I digress)

But your view is pretty much straight out of People's Weekly World. The Fed is a tool of bankers and rich moneyed interests to keep down the Working Man. The courts and the legal system are ways to keep down the Working Man. You seem to believe that all capital markets are biased against the Working Man. The fact that jet fuel prices are high but wage cuts are being pushed is just another sign of the Conspiracy Against The Working Man.

What's funny is that ages ago I pointed out that a number of airline mechanics, while not being "rich", are hardly poor. (At roughly $30/hour, that's about 62K per year for 40 hour weeks with no shift differential or OT). You replied with some comment about being just workers who can only sell their labor. Well heck, most of management are just "workers" who "sell their labor", although their labor comes sitting at a desk instead of turning a wrench or fixing wires or whatnot. The most senior management can get very wealthy with stock options, but whenever I talk about the concept of workers sharing in some equity holding in a company (that whole "workers owning the means of production" thing), you go off on how workers always get shafted in that sort of deal.

So it doesn't matter, Bob, in your worldview no one can ever win unless they agree completely with what you believe.

Here's a hint: sometimes legal decisions don't go against "workers" because of some conspiracy, sometimes they go against "workers" because the law doesn't support your view, and that's not just because "the law" was written by the Rich and Powerful to keep the working folk down.

Yeah, I know, but as we discussed long ago, I'm just a Tool for the Moneyed Interests. (Actually, come to think of it, moreso now than a few years ago).

-synchronicity

edited; I orginally typed that the Fed was a tool of Bakers. Who have a lot of bread, true, but...