>>Only if they're correct. Your's is another Union (along with the PTU)
>>that needs a good kick in the guts from it's Members to get it to
start
>>protecting their jobs.
>Are You talking about the Members Job's or about the drop in Union Fees
that
>come from a loss of members?
There's no drop in total fees, the bastards keep putting them up. Which
is what will happen to taxes.
>There is a simple Choice here. Do we save a few people's jobs
2,000! Hardly a few. Most with families. All illegally sacked by
corrigan in collusion with reith. Sacked *because* they belonged to a
Union.
>or lose everyone's job!
That's what's going to happen more and more if reith, the minister for
mass illegal sackings and corrigan the assest stripper, win.
>It is better (in a national view) to reduce the size of a
>Workforce in order to maintain the operation of the workplace.
It was reduced by 50%. The reduction in charges by stevedores? Nil! The
same as has happened in other countries.
>Sure it can
>be hard in an individuals view of things, but as I said above it is
much
>better for the majority for some jobs to be shed.
They weren't sacked to shed some jobs. They were illegally sacked
because they were members of a Union.
>Note here that I am talking JOBS not EMPLOYEES, there is a vast
difference.
Not if you're one of the 2,000 Workers illegally sacked; not if you're
one of the thousands of family members affected by this.
>In reference to the current waterfront dispute, the whole thing is
about
>money. Using rough figures The MUA is set to lose $364,000 a year.
That is
>a lot of money in anyones terms!
>(364000=1400 workers X $5 dues/week X 52 weeks)
>No wonder John Coombes (sp?) is fighting hard. It is HIS employment
that he
>is fighting for!
What rubbish.
>just my 20c.
You overvalue it.