Photos: Michigan Doctor: 'Bernie, what are you doing here?!'

[TexasTowelie]

87. The union workers were working under an expired contract that was being renegotiated.

The contract was being adhered to while the negotiations were taking place. The workers also rejected a tentative deal. While I support unions, I also recognize that companies are not required to pay any more than what they believe an employee is worth. Otherwise, everybody could form a union, sit out on strike, and demand that they are paid $250K a year because an expired contract still keeps their job unfilled.

Furthermore, I was a salaried worker (non-managerial) and I was FORCED to work up to 80 hours a week or risk being fired. I also didn't have the benefit of a union even though I would have joined, but the other employees had no interest in joining a union. From the perspective of some of those colleagues, the unions took a hit to their reputations because of corruption (most recently with the convictions of UAW officials in Michigan). I'm not intending to be anti-union with that statement, but I'm not going to avoid pointing out facts

I also did not receive any additional compensation beyond my salary or even straight comp time when I worked extra hours so I really don't want to be lectured by someone who hasn't walked in my one remaining shoe--hell, I haven't walked in that one shoe for the past 16 months, all I do is hop around on my walker hoping that I don't bust my ass. Considering that a lot of salaried workers put in extra hours each week as part of their jobs with no additional compensation, the employees at Kellogg's are not significantly different than anyone else that has been in the workforce for the last two or three decades. If someone wants to work an eight-hour day Monday through Friday and then be home for supper every night or going to soccer practice, then they are going to earn less than someone else that does put in the additional effort and is available to work outside of a traditional work schedule.

As stated above, if the striking workers have some skills that are essential then they will be rehired. If they don't posses an essential skill then they will likely be replaced. That's not intended to disparage the strikers, but once they step onto that picket line they are rolling the dice and making a gamble on being in an adversarial relationship with their employer. I don't wish any harm to any of the strikers, but there was no guarantee that their demands would be met.

I guess that anything besides 100% unwavering support could be considered as anti-union. However, pointing out that the working conditions aren't completely out of line with other companies, the fact that the strikers worked under an expired contract, and that employment is not guaranteed for anyone are factual statements rather than anti-union statements.

It does look like a tentative agreement will be voted on soon. Considering Kellogg's position about hiring non-union workers, I hope that the employees on strike come to their senses and ratify the agreement. They are on the brink of overplaying their cards and as brutal as it might be to work 80 hours a week, I can think of something even worse: being unemployed for 168 hours a week, living out in the cold or in a homeless shelter, and scrounging for food. Been there, done that. It's a matter of perspective.