Replies

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.

So when government tells people who to hire and how to run their business that's bad? When union bosses do the same thing that's good?

Sorry, I'm of the opinion that when ANYONE tells people who to hire and how to run their business it's bad. People should, here's a novel concept, be allowed to run their business their way and if they're wrong the business will go under.

All non-union employees have the same leverage: they can go work elsewhere. I've seen a software company go under because nobody would work for them, they didn't pay squat and treated people like crap. Word spread through the local industry quickly and qualified respondents to their adds dropped and eventually ended outright. Pretty soon they couldn't make any ship dates, then they stopped getting contracts, and that was all she wrote, company gone. No union necessary to do it. Workers now have leverage all by themselves.