[canuck_conservative]

At some point, unions WERE necessary, because there were some pretty hideous examples of employer abuse in the early 1900's.

BUT they went to far, making good jobs excessively expensive - I mean, someone getting $27 an hour just to shove a piece of metal in a furnance? No industry can compete with costs like that for no-talent work.

[DB]

The problem isn't unions (as much as that pains me to say).

It is government that give unions special protections.

If people want to join a union fine. If they all get fired and replaced the next day that is fine too. Why is it you are forced to join a union for all practical purposes if you work at a particular place? That is unAmerican in itself.

[gas0linealley]

At some point, unions WERE necessary, because there were some pretty hideous examples of employer abuse in the early 1900's. BUT they went to far, making good jobs excessively expensive - I mean, someone getting $27 an hour just to shove a piece of metal in a furnance? No industry can compete with costs like that for no-talent work.

If all our labor unions ceased to exist, how long would it be before those "hideous examples of employer abuse" again became the norm? Look around, that sort of abuse never totally ended, and there is plenty of it today. As for someone earning $27 an hour to do what appears to you to be "no-talent" work, what are you comparing it to? And what qualifies you to judge the matter?

[lucysmom]

BUT they went to far, making good jobs excessively expensive - I mean, someone getting $27 an hour just to shove a piece of metal in a furnance? No industry can compete with costs like that for no-talent work.

Nobody expects a company to stay in business if it can't make a profit; why do we expect a man to work for less than it takes to keep him alive and healthy without begging?