Originally Posted by airmotive
There were two different unions at play here.
Teamsters had agreed to the last and best offer from the company. The Bakers' union walked out. The Teamsters were not at all happy with the Bakers, but did not cross their picket lines.
The Teamsters will qualify for unemployment benefits under Indiana law. The Bakers will not.
So which ones wanted to keep their job?
Looks like the Teamsters (perfect example of the solidarity BS in the name) - if they wanted a job - could have decided to cross the picket line and go back to work. Were they locked out?
Just saw a news report - that the Teamsters would not allow Wonder bread and Hostess products to be shipped on the same truck - they demanded two trucks deliver to the same store. Management must have been drunk when the agreed to this - they are also at fault.
If this is true it is a perfect example of why unions are bad. It is not always about the pay - many times it is the stupid work rules that really hurt the company. Imagine two 1/2 empty trucks stopping at the same store - instead of just allowing one truck to make the trip. How efficient and effective.
Now they all get to join team unemployed without benefits. I wonder how many will make more in the next 5 years than if they would have accepted the contract?
No way to know - but seems like most will end up worse off.