Why don't more companies oust their union(s)?

[manifold]

Oh HELL no.

The government (the state of Il) should have let the miners and the union, suffer the consequences of thier action to stike themselves outta business.

Instead the union went to the state and the miners got taken care of by the tax payer.

That seems contradictory to what you initially said happened.

Got any links that might help clear up the confusion?

Sorry,
I've tried to find it online a few times before. And I come up with nothing or references to something like it at a different time or place.

What am I contradicting?

union wanted more
co said no
union stuck
co closed
union went to state for aid
State gave them aid
miners got free college and training
non-miners couldn't get jobs b/c of how much money the State paid employers

Ok, I understand now.

The company closed, putting several people out of work... a fairly normal thing to happen in a free market.

The fact that the workers were subsequently cushioned by the state's social safety net has nothing to do with the union dynamic we're discussing. If you have a beef with social safety nets (unemployment, welfare etc.) that's a different discussion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

That seems contradictory to what you initially said happened.

Got any links that might help clear up the confusion?

Sorry,
I've tried to find it online a few times before. And I come up with nothing or references to something like it at a different time or place.

What am I contradicting?

union wanted more
co said no
union stuck
co closed
union went to state for aid
State gave them aid
miners got free college and training
non-miners couldn't get jobs b/c of how much money the State paid employers

Ok, I understand now.

The company closed, putting several people out of work... a fairly normal thing to happen in a free market.

The fact that the workers were subsequently cushioned by the state's social safety net has nothing to do with the union dynamic we're discussing. If you have a beef with social safety nets (unemployment, welfare etc.) that's a different discussion.

hundreds, not several.

The union got the state to pay employers to hire, and send miners to college.

Far and beyond UI or welfare.

 

[manifold]

Sorry,
I've tried to find it online a few times before. And I come up with nothing or references to something like it at a different time or place.

What am I contradicting?

union wanted more
co said no
union stuck
co closed
union went to state for aid
State gave them aid
miners got free college and training
non-miners couldn't get jobs b/c of how much money the State paid employers

Ok, I understand now.

The company closed, putting several people out of work... a fairly normal thing to happen in a free market.

The fact that the workers were subsequently cushioned by the state's social safety net has nothing to do with the union dynamic we're discussing. If you have a beef with social safety nets (unemployment, welfare etc.) that's a different discussion.

hundreds, not several.

The union got the state to pay employers to hire, and send miners to college.

Far and beyond UI or welfare.

So they went to the state, hat in hand, and asked for money. Still don't see how that has anything to do with the company taking the (100% legal) action they took, in response to market conditions.