SulasIlor, you hit the nail on the head. Unions in North America have a long history of antagonism with management of companies. I had this same discussion today in fact with a client of mine. There is a perception by many, not the unions of course, that the unions want to squeeze every nickle from the company, leaving it virtually on life support and within an inch (2.54cm) from insolvency. The mantra is often,"people before profits". The history from 1919 forward, with Canadian unions at least, is rife with conflict. There are businesses that have failed after unions were forced upon them. This rendered them uncompetitive in the market against those that were not unionized. The UK and European models and history of unions seems vastly different than North America. There is a belief here, that if a company has a solid management team and treats it's people well, there should never be a need for a union. Most unions here are formed when there are enough disgruntled employees to force a passing vote. One could spend much time on this topic but I feel, like many others here, that time is better spent focused elsewhere at this time. I hope this may shed some light on the background of unions across the pond. As well, what I mention here is very simplistic for a complex historical entity. The generalities I use are not shared by all, especially those benefiting from unions. I have worked one union job in my life and the relationship between it and management was always tense. I look forward to "chatting" with you both soon. Derek
