| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"The Fool" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 09:42:18 AM |
| Object: |
Unions for the Little Guy? |
The message of the unions have been that they stand for the common man.
However, can that be true? Consider the following...
1. The unions seek jobs for union members, which would require job
cuts for non-union members.
2. The unions seek higher wages for union members, which would require
lower wages for non-union members.
3. The unions seek greater health care for union members, which would
reduce health care coverage for non-union members.
4. The unions promote their brand of liberal politics, which doesn't
reflect all of America or even of all of their members whose funds they
use to promote it.
5. The unions give their members benefits that they do not share with
non-union members.
Unions, and the socialist beliefs that back them, have never been for
the little guy. They have always been for themselves, at the expense
of the little guy.
Ken Clifton
Everfresh Radio
http://www.geocities.com/writingken
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Unions for the Little Guy? |
26 Sep 2005 10:31:31 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
The message of the unions have been that they stand for the common man.
Where do you get this? I have always understood that they stand for
their membership.
However, can that be true? Consider the following...
1. The unions seek jobs for union members, which would require job
cuts for non-union members.
How does that follow?
But if it did, then it puts pressure on the non-union members to
unionize, which the unions would not mind.
2. The unions seek higher wages for union members, which would require
lower wages for non-union members.
That doesn't follow either. The boss could take less profit or raise
prices.
Does your boss cut someone else's salary if he gives you a raise?
But if it did, then it puts pressure on the non-union members to
unionize, which the unions would not mind.
3. The unions seek greater health care for union members, which would
reduce health care coverage for non-union members.
You are establishing a pattern whereby you think that everything in
life is a zero sum game. It isn't.
4. The unions promote their brand of liberal politics,
Your opinion is noted.
which doesn't reflect all of America
They don't claim to.
or even of all of their members whose funds they use to promote it.
There are rules that allow members to opt out of contributing to union
political funds.
5. The unions give their members benefits that they do not share with
non-union members.
So the others should join the union.
Unions, and the socialist beliefs that back them, have never been for
the little guy. They have always been for themselves, at the expense
of the little guy.
They have been for their members, with the idea that all workers
should be in a union.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unions for the Little Guy? |
26 Sep 2005 12:46:35 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
However, can that be true? Consider the following...
1. The unions seek jobs for union members, which would require job
cuts for non-union members.
How does that follow?
Welcome to the world of neoliberal economics.
Zero-sum game where it suits you (e.g., unions),
perpetual motion where it suits you (e.g.,
taxes).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Unions for the Little Guy? |
27 Sep 2005 05:41:38 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1127745737.984970.291930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The message of the unions have been that they stand for the
common man.
However, can that be true? Consider the following...
1. The unions seek jobs for union members, which would
require job cuts for non-union members.
No; unions are typically eager to see the non-union members
organize too.
2. The unions seek higher wages for union members, which
would require lower wages for non-union members.
Quite the contrary: unions have fought hard to get the
minimum wage raised, which mostly affects non-union members.
3. The unions seek greater health care for union members,
which would reduce health care coverage for non-union
members.
Wrong again; unions seek universal health care for all.
4. The unions promote their brand of liberal politics,
which doesn't reflect all of America or even of all of
their members whose funds they use to promote it.
Speak for yourself. Union leadership, despite warts, still
better represents its membership than, say, the CEOs of
many major corporations reflect the interests of their
stockholders, and vice versa.
5. The unions give their members benefits that they do not
share with non-union members.
Again, unions are delighted when non-union members either
join or organize. You don't know what you're talking about.
Unions, and the socialist beliefs that back them, have
never been for the little guy. They have always been for
themselves, at the expense of the little guy.
What's this? Now Jesus is against unions and for corporate
Amerika?
You left out one little tidbit in your rant: a free and
independent labor movement seems utterly incompatible with
any type of dictatorship or tyranny. Totalitarians, be they
fascist or communist, seek to crush it.
That's *not* <ahem> true of big business, which is usually
very, very cozy with dictators of all stripes.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQziLgT/rA6+b3AyhAQEJIAf/ayGJabi0ZSiYs67eNpJf+RcOt2mlQEwf
GAMoK3ECrDpa7YoRYxEl79qPmp0/pAPLaRUOSyEP8VeNj1xqWaF5vk2xANllJueu
Sc9QpsP9wXDkij/5psHAJHUmvPnX3qVeMNJygo1OTJ9NxVQAg/pvC+v3xAaYhFUQ
fSjjDOioVjWwMCV3lnO/8K3Lo+q9JXJr0RZcXB2NJvP1u6mVJmDhsMHjDgCJErti
g0E4lbVpHuNvE9vHMa7ZbKxwez+5Kw6ysf4N/b7La5wCidlRtaU8JvGhqka5sGEG
v/k+LrVTTycJywBPS/Mv9WrOvuFR4JZKu+6MX6u3QCMrQ+93IsXCbw==
=qSpI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|