Government: The Real Thug in New York (by John Stossel)

Real Clear Politics ^ | January 4, 2006 | John Stossel

[Ace of Spades]

I just suffered through a transit strike. I'm ticked off about it. It didn't hurt me much, actually -- I ride a bike most days -- but New York's Transport Workers Union tortured a million commuters by going on strike. And going on strike for what? Their employer wanted to raise the retirement age for new workers -- not even current union members, people who haven't been hired yet -- to a ripe old 62, or make them pay more of their pension costs. Big deal. Some 30 people apply for each of these jobs, according to Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute. That says a lot about whether those workers are "exploited."

[atomicpossum]

I think I differ with Stossel's view of unionization as 'freedom.'

[Ace of Spades]

So you oppose freedom of association?

[atomicpossum]

So you oppose freedom of association?

Can the individuals decide to return to accept or reject the proposal on their own? Can they return to work on their own? Can they become non-Union and keep their jobs? Can they even get these jobs without joining this Union?

[jec41]

. The transit workers were threatened with fines of two days' pay for each day on strike, their union with a fine of $1 million per day, and its president with jail time. This was wrong.

No it was the law. If they were so dissatisfied they could quit and if private company's owned the subways benefits and wages would be a lot lower. Spending and prices are out of control in the cities. The more you make the more prices increase. You can live in small towns and rural areas in many states on $25,000 a year just as good as $100,000 in the cities and without the crime and BS. Every time the government gets involved and population increases
the cost of living goes up to benefit some government employee.

[Personal Responsibility]

You are correct, it is the law. Not that I disagee with the Taylor law, but the point Stossel is trying to make here is this:

Government is conceited. It thinks it's special. It makes laws to protect itself from the unions of its employees. The federal government and most states pass laws that forbid strikes

He dislikes that Government is able to pass laws to protect itself from unions by forbidding strikes. While his logic is a bit nutty, the unions that are prohibited from striking are necessary functions, that is the point he is maing.

[conservative in nyc]

Freedom of association requires the freedom not to associate. New York is a closed shop state - a worker in a union shop needs to either join the union or pay union dues anyway without getting benefits. That is not freedom of association. I think John Stossel would call that law thuggery, too.

[Marxbites]

Unions are the bane of America and the Dem's homemade, built-in, reelection slush fund.

All should check out this site!

Big Labor's Massive Political Machine
http://www.nrtw.org/d/political_spending.htm

AND!

Recent Criminal Enforcement Actions
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/enforc_actions.htm

[GovernmentShrinker]

he right to unionize IS a part of freedom. What isn't, is the government giving special rights to unions, so that workers and employers aren't on a level playing field. Unions have the government-sanctioned right to engage, on a huge scale, in anti-trust law violations that would land any employer in the federal pen. Another serious government imposition on freedom is the laws that give one union the right to represent all workers at a given employer, thus eliminating competition for better unions which actually serve their members well. Freedom is also the right to form, join, and be represented by a different union, at any time you choose. The cesspools of corruption that pass for "unions" in this country are almost without exception joint creations of government and organized crime.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Government has bestowed so many special rights on unions, that it is well-justified in withholding a few ordinary rights from them. However, Stossel implies here that the workers aren't free to quit, which isn't true. They can stop working for the MTA any time they like, without penalty. They just can't claim their old jobs and benefits back if they change their minds later. Neither can any of the rest of us free market workers, if we choose to quit our jobs.

[Alberta's Child]

Stossel might want to make note of the fact that privately-run mass transit systems are almost unheard of -- mainly because they'd be bankrupt within 48 hours due to a fatally flawed business climate. Those subways were built by private companies in New York City at a time when people had very few alternative forms of transportation, and the companies that built the subways were able to offer cut-rate fares because they were making money hand over fist on real estate deals in the outer boroughs.

The history of the NYC subway system is a microcosm of railroading on a national level in this country.

[atomicpossum]

I agree on all counts. The right to form a Union is a freedom. But in the current system, it amounts to signing away many other freedoms to do it, many of which cannot be reclaimed (at least, not while keeping your job).

[jec41]

Government is conceited. It thinks it's special. It makes laws to protect itself from the unions of its employees. The federal government and most states pass laws that forbid strikes

Its not to protect government but several million people that depend on a mandated service that can be hijacked by a few that can't be fired. Its the contest of power. Unions and government are remarkably similar.

[mountainlyons]

Ronald Regan decertified PATCO after they went on strike and many air traffic controllers got fired. The government needs to get tough. Did those people really pay the fines or is the media lying again?

[avile]

If the subway were to have been newly built from scratch at least half the workers wouldn't be needed.