Dec. 01, 2007 - 16:59 MST

THE SCALES OF JUSTICE

Our governor has signed an executive order to allow the state workers to unionize -- with no strike provisions.

I personally could live with that. I worked in a company that had power plants that supplied electric power to the public, we had no strike provisions in our contract -- but also had a binding arbitration clause as well. I think many companies that supply needed service to the public have them also.

And it is well that they do I think. I also think many cities have no strike clauses in workers contracts too. Can one imagine a city with a police force on strike ? Seems I have read of labor problems with trash haulers in New York City, but little else.

Things that many folks don't realize is that things have to be so miserable for the workers that they are willing to risk being out of work for very long to go on strike. Been there done that, was lucky, but still in the end we workers lost money to protect the workers who came after us down the line. I also remember the re-negotiations of the contract every three years as well. For about two years we would members of the corporate team, members of their family, until contract negotiation time when corporate philosophy seemed to deem us scurvy theives trying to take away their well earned treasure -- not allowing that the workers are the ones who brought that wealth in. So striking is a risky operation, end result not always totally beneficial to striking worker.

Also not realized by many folks are the protection that a good union obtains for their members nor do they realize how miserable things got, how demanding companies got and what horrible working conditions existed, no vacations number of hours worked per day and days of the week worked either.

Those conditions still exist today for many people who work for non-union companies, guess that's why Mallart sells things so cheaply.

We also seem to have a portion of our people who masochistically subject themselves to long hours, days unbroken by rest time really, and miserable working conditions -- apparently thinking they don't need somebody to step in when they push themselves so hard and fear asking for decent working conditions and time off.

Colorado Fuel and Iron Company of Pueblo (The Pittsburgh of the West) had a string of mines out here in Colorado, the miners mostly immigrants of various different languages underwent such treatment with no help. Unionization foiled at every step. Union organizers often killed during those times. Ended up in the Ludlow Massacre. Militia harassed the miners to boot. Much other mining in Colorado underwent such strife too. I also remember reading about the Pullman Strike in Cicero, Illinois (I think) Illinois anyway -- near Chicago. If you worked for Pullman you lived in and rented quarters from him, you bought at the company store and could be pushed out of your housing for buying in Chicago, such things as that.

So, yes, I can see the need for unionization, even in the government, providing binding arbitration handled by organizations that both employers and employees trust is firmly in place.

Who is so firmly, table pounding upset with this ? Who are against binding arbitration ? The same ones who have always been against any form of unionization, who use scare tactics to convince others they are right ? The Republicans begin to rave when any new sector of our public attempt to gain a foothold in seeking fair treatment by unionization.

Sure I know there have been union abuses, but compare the billions of dollars entailed in the whole thing, the percentages of money that would be lost by a company paying a fair wage, giving vacations, forty hour weeks as against workers seeking fair treatment. I remember reading of a New York painters union who would only allow paint brushes no wider that two inches being used. There were abuses, but I don't think they held a candle to what was done to workers.

I do hope that to the fair side for workers can be tipped THE SCALES OF JUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blog