Posted on 09/08/2002 3:57:49 AM PDT by logic101.net
Among the worst offenses against the rule of law in the past hundred years are the various special privileges granted to unions. The Norris-Laguardia and Wagner-Taft-Hartley Acts put unions in a position to impose their will on companies by force, to "close" a shop to all but union labor, and worst of all, to engage in violence for economic gain. No conceivable rationale could be offered for these things that would square with fundamental principles of justice. The Right-To-Work movements of the past couple of decades have done considerable good in reversing the pernicious effects of coercive, violent unionism, but much remains to be done.
There's no mystery why unionized industries have been losing jobs, while non-unionized ones have been gaining. Except for the government sector, this is uniformly true; even the heaviest manufacturing industries are learning to do with fewer and fewer human hands -- because it's the path of survival.
There is a great irony in the unflagging support of the Left for coercive unionism. Given the current state of American labor law, a union is a private army backed by political mechanisms. What other description would apply to an organization that has the privilege of compelling you to join or leave your employer, and enforcing its will by violence, for which it and its members are immunized from prosecution? Yet substitute the word "militia" for "union," and the Left would be, pardon the phrase, up in arms in righteous condemnation. But in our society, unions are single-stop shopping centers for large masses of votes and monetary support to political campaigns -- and the Left cannot wean itself from them.
Violence for economic gain. Forced collectivization. A status above the law. Josef Stalin would approve.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
...the unit that pulls the trailer or trailers down the road is not a truck, it is a tractor; a unit that is not complete without a trailer. [CF] then started a new company, to manufacture tractors for them.
Methinks it was the trailers, not the tractors, that CF started building. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Unions tend to create a wall of distrust between management and labor;
Management does this also. This sword cuts both ways.
IMO, if labor and management work in opposition to each other, then everybody loses. Sooner or later.
I know there was a company named White-Freightliner for a time. I think that it was always more "White" than "Freightliner", but I suppose they must have teamed up on it. Not sure if that's the same company.
I don't think any tractor was ever produced by CF. It is more logical that they would have built trailers.
This leads me to a defining moment in my view on unions, the UPS strike a few years ago. Now keep in mind that these guys were making over $20/hr. At over $20/hr, these people were telling this to their customers; proclaiming it loud and long!
As as customer of FedEx and UPS I couldn't care less what they pay their employess, it is what they charge me that matters. Since FedEx ground service quality sucks, I would be happy to use UPS and their higher paid drivers - since they are able to offer rates better than FedEx anyhow. I am sure there are different factors for other companies, the one that makes no difference is what hourly rate they pay their employees.
Okay. I can go with that.
Like I said in a previous message, I do recall White-Freightliner. Iirc, White was having financial problems, and Freighliner hooked up with them for a time. Bad idea.
To my eyes, the clear emphasis of the original post was anti-union. I was just trying to goose it up a bit the other way.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that unions are always a good thing. I just think that opposition between management and labor has usually turned out to be a bad thing.
From what I can see, that is the direction things are going again these days. For example, all the fancy management compensation packages. I think those are wrong for both labor and for the shareholders.
Pretty much... and generally speaking, management won't bother to slash your tires if you decide to look for greener pastures. I've also never heard a manager make veiled threats against a worker's new bride just for complaining about deductions.
The employeees in the copy room of the city where I used to live used to be paid $15 an hour. They also had excellent benefit plans, including "domestic partner" benefits.
They would go out on strike anyway.
Service Employees International Union. SEIU
Nonsense.
It was not real clear who 'they' was referring too, sorry.
I understood it.
Having seen drivers literally run in with packages at Christmas time -- as I have seen UPS drivers do many times -- I believe employee pay and satisfaction do make a difference in the quality of the service that is ultimately provided to the customer.
If UPS is paying $15 and XYZ is paying $12, who's drivers do you think are going to run?
(Do I keep a FedEx account in case UPS stikes? You bet. Will I care who is union and who is not? Not unless it actually affects the service provided to me. I have no problem with the UPS union. I know my driver works his ass off, 12-14 hour days - but my product gets out every day, he waits a couple minutes if needed.)
**I realize I am generalizing about two companies based on the interactions with just 2 employees.
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.