Originally Posted by fergus51
Because like you yourself said in the paragraph above, they can't afford to close their doors because of their reputation.
I have never seen any proof that striking nurses are in fact more expensive than a hospital closing their doors. I seriously doubt a hospital would close rather than reach a reasonable agreement with their nurses. Strikebreakers do what they do, and that's their decision. I'm not naive enough to believe they are doing it for the patients or that their actions help the nurses on strike. That's one of those don't pee on me and tell me it's raining kind of things.
Fortunately, you'll never have to find out how fast hospitals would close if they could during as strike, because replacement workers will always be there.
I just can't see how unions can really be all that upset about hospitals having to bleed cash to stay open.
If I want 100 dollars from you and it will take me 25 dollars a day to keep from having to pay you the extra hundred, how many days could I hold out before it's just not worth it to resist any longer? 4 you say? NO. Because 4 days from now, the cost of finally giving you that hundred will now cost me 200 hundred. By day 2, the realities of the costs of holding out would begin to set in.
Now, multiply that by millions.
I like your quote, even if it isn't accurate. A more apt one: don't bite the hand that feeds you (or in this case, helps get you what you want).
~faith,
Timothy.