In article <xbiDc.15294$rh.13313@okepread02>, geetarplyr wrote:
> the question is.....why should Starbucks pay more for retards in a
> union...when they can just go hire retards down the street for 1/2 the way
> and who will have 2x the performance and motivation and really appreciate
> the job......or illegal aliens or greencarders.....anything but the genetic
> defect union mongers

True enough; then, why shouldn't a comapny hire 8 year olds at say $.75/hr,
or 12 year olds to mine their coal -- after all in a free labor market all
is fair right? Wrong. We have a number of labor laws to protect worker
safety and conditions -- including wages. By law the employees at Starbucks
have the right to organize and seek collective barganing -- Starbucks has
the right to not recognize the union and risk a strike. Starbucks does not
have the right to interfere with the efforts of employees to organize; they
may, of course, point out why a union may not serve the interests of the
employees, but only mannor which contributes to the debate.

--sjk

--
-------- Aude Sepere -------

http://www.dredel.com
---- Audax et Cautus -------