It's Not The Strikers Who Need Protection

Please allow me to put the problem in perspective ("You can't bargain with a striker whose job is no more," Top of the News, Aug. 5). When one gets into a fistfight, which a strike is, one sizes up the opposition. If the opponent is bigger and tougher, a smart person will back away. However, if one chooses to wade in anyway and gets a bloody nose, one shouldn't run crying to mama (in this case the government).

The reason for allowing strike replacements to become "permanent" employees is because they put up with a lot of harassment and violence when they cross a picket line. No right-thinking individual would put up with that kind of treatment if they thought they would be terminated the minute a strike was over.

While you showed employer "wins" in six strikes, how about the hundreds of small employers that unions have put out of business by their heavy-handed tactics? It is utter hooey to say "take away strikers' jobs and you take away their right to strike." Unions still strike frequently, thank you!

Philip R. Moore

Snowmass Village, Colo.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.