It does indeed. Maybe if they won't recognise them another union can come in and replace them with a more forward-looking view? (I mean one that doesn't just resist practically all change but instead recognises that change is the nature of the world but fights for members' rights through change, which is what I think unions are *really* for).
Not recognising them is in my view totally and utterly wrong. It's not the individual's fault that there weren't any guard roles for them to take instead.
They certainly need to be more pragmatic. In my view they missed a trick by not pushing harder on the customer service aspects of the guard role and the importance of maintaining a second person on board for that reason (which I wholeheartedly agree with). The safety argument is a valid one but, let’s face it, has been largely lost since DOO was introduced in the 1980s.
At this point it would be better to make the best of the current situation rather than continuing to dig their heads into the sand to the detriment of their members (not to mention turning their backs on a lot of potential new OBS members, which will be to the union’s own detriment, in the long run).
They also really, really need to improve their PR.
EDIT: I also agree with your excellent description of what a union should be for, although I’m not sure the change introduced in this case is a necessary or beneficial one rather than a politically motivated one (and one achieved at enormous cost, far in excess of just leaving things as they had been).
