I did read about Wisconsin and Michigan but they didn’t make a strong impression on me because 1) I didn’t follow them in as much detail as other Freepers. I wish I had more time to dedicate to reading the news but I don’t. 2) What I did manage to read still doesn’t compare to the US in the 1960s or what I have seen in other countries, either in frequency or intensity. Michigan and Wisconsin made headline news because they were rare; in countries like Italy and Argentina where these types of strikes actually are common nobody bothers to report most of them because they’re not considered newsworthy.
There’s quite a difference between public sector unions and private sector unions: namely, public sector unions’ employers have the capacity to tax. So, public sector union bosses reason, why shouldn’t we make outrageous demands? After all, the government can’t go out of business. That’s why I agree that public sector unions like those of teachers and prison guards are out of control and have to be reined in. Private sector unions, on the other hand, know their employers cannot simply raise revenue with the stroke of a pen, thus it is in their self-interest to moderate their behavior lest they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
In a perfect world there would be no unions, each worker could negotiate his/her salary with boss individually, and salaries would accurately reflect the value of the worker’s labor to the company. We don’t live in a perfect world. The playing field is not level. For instance, CEOs of America’s biggest 350 companies earned 231 times what the average private sector worker did in 2011 (Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/ratio-ceo-worker-compensation) I find it hard to believe the CEO’s labor is really worth 231 times that of the workers who are actually making the widget. Part of the definition of being a leader of any kind is that you have more power over your subordinates than they have over you. Theoretically, of course, a top-performing worker who feels he/she is being underpaid can leave for another job but if all the company’s competitors are also paying their workers less than the value than value of their labor (and they will be because it’s in their self-interest to maximize their own profits) where exactly is he/she going to go? The idea that the non-rich have the same opportunities as the rich is idealism to the point of utopianism. First you’d have to get rid of the natural human instinct of rich parents to provide the best for their children, e.g. a host of SAT tutors that poor parents couldn’t begin to afford, a job in management in whatever corporation he/she owns regardless if the kid is qualified or not, etc.
You mentioned self-interest as the primary motivation for human behavior. Okay, so let’s talk about self-interest. Right now the GOPe is telling me to put my trust in so-called “job creators”, who have a self-interested incentive in hiring as few workers as possible and paying the workers they do have as little as possible, to increase employment and get us out of the recession. That doesn’t make sense to me. Relying on self-interest alone is not going to get us out of this. For example, another poster mentioned that rich are hoarding their cash (as are plenty of non-rich) because it is in their self-interest, which is true. Yet if everyone does this, the economy will remain mired in a recession because our economy is so dependent on consumer spending. So sometimes the aggregate of all self-interested decisions actually leads to everyone being worse off, rather than better off. I’m not saying Adam Smith was wrong, just that his theory of the invisible hand doesn’t work in every circumstance.
That's why I suggested you have a Twinkie...at least as long as you can, if you can still find one. One of the unions put that company out of business, in this economy!
Check out the airlines' history of troubles with the unions. I understand it's not just the unions' fault. I have seen and experiences multiple management fiascoes in multiple companies and been through more than a few corporate takeover aftermaths. But as a general rule, unions just add to the problem, and do not add to the solution. I like working in non-union places MUCH better.
You might also enjoy reading the history of union activity in the US, during times of war, and not just times of peace. Generally, union teachers won't teach you about the full history of unions, only the good stuff.
What you saw in Madison and in Michigan was just a taste of what they are all capable of, good times or bad. I've also heard that violence done by union members while they are protesting is OK legally, but I need to look into that more to be sure. Didn't surprise me, though. The history supports legal favoritism toward them like that.
For most of my working life, I have been a factory worker in various industries, high and low tech, some using my brain, most no brain required beyond basic skills. The better I made myself, the better jobs I've been able to get.
I read a lot of hostility and frustration, class warfare stuff in your post. Personally, I never go there and refuse to let myself do that to my attitude. It's poison. It's the dark side. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Feel free to add your own Yoda quotes.
This is what I know. My risk and contribution to that company's success justified the wage I made. I was not bothered or jealous of the salaries the CEO, Pres. VPs or what anyone else made, nor did I view their salaries as a threat to mine. I truly had no comprehension of what they did to earn it and what effect their work had on the success of failure of the company.
If they ran it into the ground, it was their business, not mine, even though I would suffer their loss along with them. If they somehow were successful, then good for them and for me, since the better they were, the better they did, the better I did, as I worked more hours and got better raises. Therefore, I wanted the highest paid management possible if that meant they were the best for the job. I only care about their merit, not their money.
For the work and the opportunity I was grateful. Unlike with talented management, almost anyone with similar skills could have done my job, so I tried to be a bit better and help make things run smoothly. Still got laid off, but was always hired back. Such is life.
You determine your success and your failure. No one else. You may be helped or hurt by those around you, but in the end, you are the one in charge. It sucks that the government types play class warfare games and divisively pit us against each other, but you don't have to let your self fall for it.
It may be harder now or not, don't know. It's always hard. Start from that point of view and it actually gets easier. Start with the idea that your success is in someone else's hands or in fate's hands and you'll struggle with attitude problems that will sabotage you and your efforts and prove that belief for you the rest of your life.
It doesn't matter where you start in this race, all that matters is how you run it. Some of us start well back of the starting line and still finish well. Read the biographies of the successful and you'll see what I mean. They generally live the secret to the success you speak of.
Each of us have a million dollar idea, but most of us never recognize it or do anything with it. It's doable, if you want it bad enough. I simply hate the ones who make the path so much harder than it is already. Most of us aren't Paris Hilton and are grateful to God for that fact. She doesn't look all that happy anyway.
Apologies for going on and on for soooooo long...others say this stuff so much better than I do. Listen to Freewill by Rush to see what I mean.