Discussion in 'Advocacy' started by SibeRescueBrian, Aug 5, 2016.
For anyone who knows union history, this is freaking dumb. You have these so-called caring politicians going around talking about "rights to unionize" while conveniently forgetting to mention that until the socialists took office EVERYONE had the right to join a union if they met the union's requirements. THE POLITICIANS PRETENDED IT WAS A PRIVILEGE AND TOOK A RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AWAY.
Then they turned-around and created labor relation boards, commissions (usually filled with industry insiders) and other institutions they pretended exist to "protect" you...and make themselves look like heroes. In the early union days the political parties HATED unions because they couldn't be controlled for political ends--they had as a founding plank (after Samuel Gompers made them into effective groups) that they would accept ZERO political help, links to politicians, overtures, or regulatory control because it was their right to associate, be self-sufficient, help one another, and negotiate with companies with ZERO political oversight.
It's funny, the only time I made minimum wage was also the only time I was in a stupid union.
I have made more than three times that rate with benefits without the representation from a group of parasites.
That's not because unions can't work, that's because the unions no longer practice unionism. When they were effective, they actively kicked-out the parasites, and allowed only those with skills taking 10+ years to acquire toward economic viability to join.
All research studies into how effective unions have been have found the following two universals, they benefit only:
(1) the highly skilled (difficult-trades tradesmen, lawyers, doctors, etc.),
(2) those who negotiations are not with those who pay their bills (e.g. bureaucrats, who are insulated from public/people accountability).
Nobody else. Everyone else is, therefore, either (a) being used by the unions willing to ignore that they don't match either of these demographics or (b) insuring a day their jobs disappear (think those grocery workers at nearly $30 an hour right before the chain went so bankrupt they didn't even try to salvage it: the wages were literally siphoning-off the money needed to R&D and catch-up with firms like Kroger).
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I've always encountered the same: damn union did nothing, just stole (at one point, literally) from my checks, and lawyers warned "well, they now own a political party which also owns them, there's not a damn thing you or any of the workers can do--and trying to get rid of them often means getting off'd."<--actual words of the lawyer (a Democrat in the USA too)
I agree with thelittleguyhelper. No, the future trend is cooperatives and employee-owned businesses. That way, there is no more wage-payer/wage-earner dynamic. And then, the only things government will have to say is; 1) are you paying taxes? 2) are doing it safely?
Best. Avatar. Ever.
Separate names with a comma.