Posted on 03/14/2011 9:04:02 AM PDT by Doctor 2Brains
Only I can decide what is an integral part of my company, and I should be able to fire a union guy at any time I choose. Unions don’t create the adversarial relationship — welfare begging bums who think they are entitled to the property of others create it. Unions just empower it.
Waaah. Waaah. That's the whine from defenders of unionism. They're ready to repeat the usual tearful tale of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire which has been amplified and distorted over time by leftists to advance their anti-American agenda.
And pop culture has played a role with films such as "Norma Rae" tugging on our heartstrings with ersatz pathos.
The reality is that from their very inception, labor unions have been filled with Communists, Socialists and anarchists (many of them foreign). Today, look at the wasteland of Detroit. The cause? Unionism! My hometown of Pittsburgh, once the steel capital of the world, is now the home of rusted, abandoned mills along the Mon. Why? Unionism!
Public employee unions are a wholly separate problem from private sector unions.
The problem of private sector unions is solved by right-to-work laws.
Public employee unions must have their power limited by law as was done last week in Wisconsin.
You are 100% correct.
But Katie Couric says managers are mean to people, so we need unions, and assault rifles are REAL deadly, so we gotta get rid of them. So I don’t know what to think.
I was a union member for 32 yrs. As time went on, I became more disenchanted with the whole union concept. They don’t give a damn about the “working man”. If they did, the union would support tax cuts for the middle class, which they always oppose. No, unions are all about power for the few, not unlike dictatorships in communist countries.
I agree with the key point of the article that all unions are indeed bad. Realistic pragmatism does require that we focus on public sector unions such as the SEIU. I'd like to see every single union die a rapid death but if government unions can be eliminated, I think natural progression will lead to all of them shriveling up and becoming irrelevant.
There will never be an ABSOLUTE right for property owners to use their property as they wish, it would result in anarchy, the exact opposite of intent.
Also, we will never be rid of government, so the logical solution is equal protection under the law.
Government favoritism is the union advantage. Without it, unions would have to offer contribution rather than obstruction, to elicit agreements.
Both business and unions seek government favor and protection, and both deserve neither.
Government and government favoritism are the problem, and when the favoritism goes, the market will correct the balance.
Unions will continue, as long as they supply a product of value, a highly skilled, trained, productive worker, (though they will probably call themselves "associations" rather than unions, and skills would not include tenure or seniority).
Its always possible, just not always preferable or practical.
Government sanctioned theft is a slogan that allows for not having to make an actual argument. Anything anyone doesnt like thats related to the govt can be govt sanctioned theft.
The whole premise of liberty and freedom is people are free to make bad decisions. If we go against that freedom, how are we different than the collectivists?
There may never be an absolute right to one’s property, but firing a bum who’s trying to steal from you is a FAR FAR way from absolute.
_______________________________________
Really? Let's take a look...
Your first statement...“Mr. Employer (rich, white, capitalist, male), if you fire this union man, you are going to jail.”
Your second statement..."It is against the law to fire people for being in a union or going on strike"
Nope, sorry, two completely different statements.
I had a neighbor once who felt he needed two of everything...had two dogs, neither barked...had two cars, neither started...had two businesses, both failed...had two brains...you said it.
I changed nothing. Keep trying, keep trying real, real hard. You can do it. Maybe.
In my working life, I have been a member of two unions, and I have seen this happen more than once in real life, with results in both directions, great success and absolute failure.
It was the men the attitude and the market that determined who succeeded.
UNIONS are NOW obsolete.. was good for a time.. BUT that time has passed..
Unions have become political machines.. for sheep being FARMED.. FARMED........
You can’t escape the reality that employees are a necessary part of your company. WHICH employees should be entirely yours to decide, I agree. But if you concede that you share a goal with your employees — a healthy, viable company — then there is no need for the us-versus-them mentality unions bring to the table. There will always be those pro-union forces for whom no symbiosis is adequate, just as there will always be those slave-galley businessmen who treat their employees worse than vermin. In most cases the free-market solution is the best. But I can see an argument for collectivism as well. The latter does not inherently constrain the free market.
The latter DOES inherently constrain the free market IF I am not FREE to fire any employee for joining a union. There is nothing FREE about the government forcing me to hand over my private property to a man on my private property who is working against my private interests.
Are you familiar with the arguments of the writers I cited? Those arguments shoot down the “unions WERE needed at one time” theory. Those arguments go WAY beyond “The employee can quit if he doesn’t like it.”
Employers don't like it, they can shut down and start up elsewhere. Free markets don't require kind-hearted and fair workers, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.