DescentBB

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/this ... yrmyNBxz4L

The \"United Federation of Teachers\", a teachers union, fired Jim Callaghan for trying to unionize the non-union employees who worked in the office.

To be fair, we appear to only be getting one side of the story. And, apparently many (if not most) of the UFT employees ARE unionized.

But this still brings up a couple of interesting questions.

1: Does it bring into question the very purpose of unions if the unions themselves are resisting unionization?

2: So, suppose they hadn't fired Jim, and he had created a new Union, \"United Union Workers Union\". This new union would need offices, and employees wouldn't it? Wouldn't THEY need to belong to a union? We could call it the \"United Union Workers Union Union\". And, of course, THOSE guys need a union as well the \"United Union Workers Union Union Union\". And so on, and so on. Think about it. This could SOLVE this countries unemployment crisis! This recursive loop could keep repeating until there was no one left for the union offices to hire!

Guess the question I want answered is why is the union is using non union labor in the first place?

That deserves a class 4 chuckle…

I do believe it’s against the law to fire someone because they are trying to unionize…a law fought for by…

Jims problem was he didn't first go to National Labor Relations, tell them he was trying to unionize the workers and thus be protected from being fired. NLR would of notified Jim's boss that the union could not fire him.