Replies

Free market?

Are you implying that I could go...say...Long Beach and be hired to drive a fork lift for...well, hell...I'd do it for $100,000 per year?

I have seen these union thugs at work, and my car would be bashed and battered as I drove through their picket lines in an attempt to get to work. I would probably be shot.

Usually, the crooked cops stand by and watch, too.

I am not making this up. I have personally observed it in Laughlin, NV, in 1980 when Southern California Edison was on strike. I saw the guns, I saw the headlights being broken with 2x4s, and I saw the Sheriff's Deputies standing around and watching, but doing nothing.

Is this your idea of a free market, newbie?

It's a heck of a lot more free than Big Government telling people who to hire and how to run their business.

I have absolutely no problem with unions discouraging "scabs." Scab labor hurts a union's bargaining position--obviously it is going to oppose it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Look, maybe most of you would like to return to the days in which companies paid people $1 a day and said "take it or leave it, there are 25 people outside who want your job." Personally, I am of the opinion that it is economically beneficial to have a "wealthier" lower class, if you will. Although I'm pro-business, I'm also of the opinion that business shouldn't be allowed to hold all the cards. Collective bargaining is a way to negate the natural advantage that a business owner has over his employees without Big Government stepping in.

I'm not saying that you can go to long beach and get hired to drive a forklift for $100 large. But here's the thing: no offense to people that drive forklifts, but it is a very low skill job. I'm confident in saying that anyone can drive a forklift, and I'm fairly confident in extending that to a well trained member of the primate species. That being said, if your job is to drive a forklift, what leverage do you have over your employer except collective bargaining? Without it, the employer holds all the cards--the employer knows that he can hire ANYONE in the whole world to this position and, more or less, not miss a beat. If you drive a forklift, you don't have a leg to stand on. The employer could say, "I'll offer $2 an hour." Sure, it's below minimum wage, but even say minimum wage (which , in and of itself is bad policy, in my opinion)--whatever it is now, $5.00 or something. So the company offers $5.00 a day--they don't need to worry about any special skills, so as long as the guy shows up, they are happy. Meanwhile, there are people out there that think, "Well, $5 sucks, and I know there are other jobs that might pay me $10, but 50% of something beats 100% of nothing," so they take the job. And then there's no stopping the employer from cutting the wages or anything else like that, because there are always no skill/no education workers than can take his place. This just leads to an ultra-poor lower class, similar to what we had at the turn of the 20th century. I, and I think most people would agree, that is poor economic policy. Collective bargaining is the most efficient resolution to the problem.