Thanks for your comments..... though I appreciate your opinion on unions, I personally believe that it depends on the situation. Where this strike is concerned, placed in Canada, it has nothing to do with protecting the lazy, quite the opposite. These people I know work very hard, have been working without a contract and have been without a contract since 2004, and that's not because they are demanding more money..... quite the contrary. The corporate owner is wanting to take the name and change it, thereby forcing these people under a new contract where the top that anyone can make is 11.00 per hour.
All these workers are asking for is for their contract (whichever one they sign under the name they are presently under) be protected if/when the corporate owner decides to change it.
The contracts that have come up have offered up to 0.50 cents per hour raise over 3 years, and the union was prepared to accept if it offered protection for that contract should the name be changed.... the corporate owner said no......
And these people don't make 30.00 per hour, in fact, the highest paid employee makes 20.00 per hour and only reached that after putting in three decades of service. That is less than any other grocery store in the area.
Though I know there are situations where I don't agree in strikes (postal workers striking because 7 days of sick leave per year wasn't enough for example) these people, I believe, have a right to protect their contract and be compensated for the time they have put in.
Honestly, when you can make more at the local fast food joint just seems so very wrong.