That's where we disagree. It's inevitable, but I don't think you can speed it up. It's already the holy grail of transportation, with numerous real world and regulatory hurdles. It might even end up like the flying cars of the 50's, unworkable without drastic infrastructure changes. This sort of negotiations are a drop in the bucket to all but the most rabid anti-union types, and they'll be pissed no matter what, right?

Do you understand what inevitable means? If inevitable is coming down the pike I'm not worried about being adversarial. Any attempt to change the dynamic is valid.

I know that I'm not worried about it, because every time I am bothered to check on it, it is progressing in a meaningful manner. I'm certainly not obsessed with it and I'd rank it's importance somewhere under whether my turd was brown or brownish green during my last bowel movement.

No, but it is suspicious that this company decided to move overseas, at a time that many companies were doing the same, and it was only because the union guy was a jerk. That sounds like the straight up truth to you?

It doesn't matter how short the horizon is, the most "efficient" economical outcome is to get the most possible while you can. Unless your saying economics is junk science? (hint, it is)

That's the real reason people are conservative. They think they are the best, they can't imagine things better, and they're doing pretty good under the current system.

Please elaborate on what part of this is a non-functioning check/balance? Looks like things are progressing properly.

So your solution is to hire a never ending stream of short timers who want to be in the city to look for work? Not make this job desirable to cut down on training and retention costs while insuring you will have a consistent experience for your customers? You honestly don't see how short sighted your proposal is?

I know the owners of that specific company, so I only attribute good things to them and I've included a healthy dose of confirmation bias in this anecdote.
FTFY

You haven't made an argument yourself. You just spouted an anecdote and made some hostile statements.

So on the one hand, drivers are no-skilled workers who should not make as much as a skilled worker. On the other hand a seniority system is unfair. How would you judge identical widgets? Seniority seems pretty fair to me.

Well, it certainly worked out well for all those unions that just rolled over for management. Your anecdote just shows how good some people are at creating a narrative to justify their actions.

Yeah, no shit. If an entrepreneur rakes in the cash on a technology with a set end date, he is, "leveraging the current needs of the market". If a working stiff does it, they are, "being shortsighted".

I'm an employee of a company. I provide a service, in exchange for compensation. That's it, and that's that. I have no business whatsoever to tell the leadership how to run the company. If I want to run a company, I'm free to start my own.

That's partially true, but you are taking a risk by linking your employment to that company. You absolutely deserve some say in how it is run, even if it is just your department or your checkout line. Your confusing employment with contract work.

Your whole comment is predicated that software guys should make more then bus drivers. Nobody is arguing that. It's true and it will continue to be true. These guys are making $27.50. If you make that much as a software dev in NorCal, you did something wrong. Maybe that fits the midwest, but even there you should be at least 30% higher.