It doesn't matter whether the union is new or not. The negotiation is about the contracts between the employers and the employees in either case. The union just serves to enhance the leverage of the employees in the negotiation. The employer is party to the issue that lead to the work stoppage.

Whereas in a case of an individual employee refusing to do the work over their personal religious beliefs the employer has nothing to do with the issue that lead to them not doing the work.

Really Draug, the two issues are not at all similar.

The language of burden is the language of the Civil Rights Act, as a balance or compromise between the employer and employee on the issues of religious objection to certain work. It's not my wording. Giving employers an unlimited right to do as they please, even lock out workers without supporting the right to strike doesn't make a lick of sense, and is completely unbalanced.

To expand on that. In case of a union strike the employers will go back to work if the employer gives in to their demands for better pay (or whatever). While in the case of religious belief the employer will not do the work no matter what the employer does. This illustrates how the latter situation is completely beyond the employer's control while the former is not.

What about when giving in to those demands bankrupts the employer. And don't say it never happens because it has and does.

Provide an example.

I'm on the phone at dinner, but I'm sure krellin has some links at hand with regards to Detroit.

Yeah, that would require that the employees/union are stupid. Keeping the business viable is a shared interest of the employer and the employees, since if it bankrupts they both lose. If they act rationally then the boundary of the negotiation should be within the limits of a viable business plan.

That being said, people aren't always rational, so I'm sure there are examples to be found of them fucking this up.

Detroit fell apart because management made bad decisions. Bad value drove prices the Big Three could ask for their crap products down. Foreign competitors were making more efficient cars as gas prices rose. Japanese competitors were actually selling their cars for higher prices than the Big Three were by a large margin, so you can't say that labor costs were pricing American cars out of the market.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/11/us%20automakers%20winston/11_us_automakers_winston.pdf

I'm talking about the city itself trying to avoid bankruptcy while the various unions refused to negotiate.

No, Detroit's bankruptcy plan is what unions are objecting to, because the entirety of the plan falls on the backs of retired public employees, gutting their healthcare and pensions.

And exactly what are the unions offering to help ease the burden? Absofuckinglutely nothing. No pay cuts or benefit cuts for the workers. Nadda. So the unions are making it impossible and the city is likely to not just reorganize but fold entirely.

The banks are what caused the mess in the first place with the illegal swap deals. Now they are trying to steal Detroit retirees pensions. The bankruptcy was illegal. The swap deals were illegal. And the court already ruled in favor of the banks anyway so what are you talking about?