Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
CDA

Journal Bill Dog's Journal: (add'l on) how labor unions are evil [LONG] 26

Journal by Bill Dog

This was initially going to be titled "why labor unions are evil", but it struck me that they aren't inherently so, just virtually completely so in practice. But that's not enough to discard the idea altogether. Besides, forming associations is one of our fundamental freedoms, and I don't think there's Constitutional basis for trampling it when the shared interest that people are gathering over happens to be work-related.

Over the weekend I had popped into the the game programming front-page discussion briefy. And while it was still somewhat young, but still too many posts to even attempt to make it all the way thru. And this being a predominantly Left-wing site and readership, or at least postership, invariably the topic of unionization was brought up. And a couple of posts in particular spurred my thinking about this and wondering if, despite being of course inarguably horrifically evil in their long-time modern form, maybe unions could actually exist, and do their job, but in a non-evil form.

One of these posts suggested that unions have their place, but can become a monopoly, so maybe the same anti-trust laws that apply to corporations should also apply to them. The other post merely pointed out that you could take someone's prior general description of unions, and simply s/unions/management/, and it stays at least as accurate.

I think the latter is exactly right, and that's why I would no sooner join a union than I would enter actual management ranks. But the problem with unions is not just that they're monopolistic. Which is bad enough. It's what they promote. And I'm not even referring here to the Communist underpinnings of them, of uniting the workers and getting them to uprise and overthrow capitalism and usher in a glorious new way. I'm talking about the attitude they promote. The attitude of belonging to some special class of human being, and deserving of rewards and privileges, at the expense of the rest of the people.

I believe in trying to get ahead. The carrot of making more money and having a more comfortable life is the genius of capitalism. It's like the reproduction instinct -- it's a driving force that acts on each individually, and individually we're free to reject it, but at the same time it overall preserves and advances things collectively. I.e. much of the benefit of a centrally-planned and oppressively-ruled society, without the head group of a-holes running all our lives.

So I believe in trying to get ahead, but I plan to go my whole life trying and maybe sometimes succeeding, without doing so by stealing from someone else. For example I take classes and read books. And try to qualify for higher-paying positions. I compete fairly, on merit, and then let the chips fall where they may. Unions and managers often or typically do not. Management sets themself up sweetheart deals, whether the business goes up or down. Same with unions. And who pays for it are the customers, the shareholders, and the average worker who's not in the clique.

Union organizers/leaders are like the dishonest mtg brokers of the housing bubble. They play on peoples' greed, to go into cahoots with them to screw the Average Joe and grab for themself an unrealistic and unwarranted windfall. So the greedy and dishonest little guys that sign up for this enjoy a luxurious situation (which can't last), while the instigators advance their own interest, whether it be riches or Left-wing idealogy.

Like management who takes bonuses when the business is doing poorly, unions reward themselves with ridiculous and lucrative pensions, dragging the company down even further. Both are looters of businesses and the common man. Both are criminals, as this is a criminal mindset.

And like the bankers engaging in unsustainable practices and economically endangering the whole society, same with the unions and their equal recklessness and carelessness for the systems that support us all. My state and especially my city is being crushed by the enormous and unattainable financial obligations unions have stolen for themselves. Both engage in actions that threaten the foundations of our modern society. I've heard theories about how each one might actually be wanting that -- the rich wanting to destroy the current system in favor of a purer corporate oligarchy, and the Left wanting to destroy the current system in favor of a purer socialist state. Whichever case(s) may be, both have nevertheless hugely destructive effects. And so to be, BTW, against only one of these, is to also be part of the problem, and represent and include yourself as part of the danger to the nation and its people.

(Maybe this means you shouldn't necessarily hang along with those who are actually within these two criminal classes, but should certainly be punished as an accomplice. And unfortunately I think this overlooking of evil, despite evils occuring on both the Right and Left, is disproportionately on the Left. That is, I think if you told the average Right-winger what goes on in the financial sector, almost all would be appalled and oppose it (and we were when we found out, and vociferously opposed bailing them out). But if you told the average Left-winger what goes on in labor unions, almost all would respond with meh or outright support of it. It has to do with the very different nature of Left-wingers and their view of evil (it's a tool and so is therefore often actually good), as compared to Right-wingers (it's bad, period, and is to be avoided).)

So, how could unions be retained for their power-balancing benefit, but without the crimes against humanity. Breaking them up into smaller unions might help to solve a few of the evils (and then anti-colusion laws would have to be applied), but it would only makes things worse insofar as expanding the class warfare aspect of them -- if competition between them were introduced, unions would then not only be vying for extravagant goodies at the expense of the populace in general, but they'd be also trying to out-gouge one another in competition for membership.

Basically, I'm thinking the whole thing needs to be started over, fresh. First of all, they need to be resistive to corrupting influences, whether from revolutionaries or mobsters. There's a "law" coined by someone I can't come up with right now that basically any organization that doesn't start out to specifically be Conservative will end up Liberal. Like a Chaos theory for organizations, that they have a tendency to naturally degrade to greater levels of disorder and radicalism. And I would add the corollary of over time deemphasizing and esp. sacrificing somewhat the original mission of the org, to join the general pursuit of Leftism overall. So the charter of this new kind of union would not be "workers unite (and then hopefully revolt and trash the whole system)" but "workers unite to maintain the system and see to it that it works fairly for us and for all", basically. Specifically, organizationally embrace capitalism, and the freedom of it and the opportunity it enables, and our system of trickle-down economics, but seeking to ensure that thru shared work/risk that wealth continues to trickle down, rather than up such as under our current political leadership.

Then, instead of one (or more) per industry, there should only be one, period. And even if you don't join, they lobby for and protect the rights and interests of all workers regardless. For example the NRA doesn't just lobby for gun rights for its members. Planned Parenthood doesn't lobby to keep abortion legal but only for its supporters. So why should a workers union be for representing only certain workers. It's prolly because labor unions are mostly about their own survival and keeping the movement (towards Communism) alive, workers be damned. But workers shouldn't stand for that, and we should *all* be united as workers, and for ourselves and not for some co-opting criminals with their own self-serving plan.

Leverage would then be only in the form of an absolutely ginormous constituency's lobbying voice. No strikes, as this is just another way unions currently damage businesses, and hence indirectly themselves. Besides, if you think about it, current union activity is essentially of a terrorist form -- when we had a grocer's union strike here some years back, they got other unions to cease delivery of food items like dairy to the stores, and they got other stores to join in the strike, so the Average Joe who's not even involved had to make lengthy drives all over town to gather the necessary foodstuffs (and, incidently, all those extra car emissions are great for the ozone hole or whatever Leftists want us to worry about next). I.e. it wasn't just attack the management whom they had the beef with, it was attack the innocent populace and lean on them to try to get them to lean on the stores. (I think around here it just generally pissed us all off, and made us mad at the stores but even madder at the unions.) So no destructive forms of leverage, or collateral damage like that, as that's also hurting the kind of people (other workers driving home from a long day at work and wondering where the heck they're gonna find the ingredients for their dinner that night) the organization is purportedly there to support.

So basically a new kind of labor union that's one for all and all for one, and is for the current system we workers enjoy today and not against it, and that fights to keep our rightful place in the current system.

p.s. That reminds me, something I didn't think to fit into this, but that's also important, is protecting American jobs (from the globalists on the Right and the Left). There may be others.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

(add'l on) how labor unions are evil [LONG] More

(add'l on) how labor unions are evil [LONG]

Comments Filter:
  • Thanks for the lulz.

    • Since we're sharing, I presume on how totally different the universes we live in are, something that I found to be riotously ridiculous was this [slashdot.org]:

      "Meanwhile, corporations with their hands stuffed comfortably up politician's rectums, they've managed to convince everyone that unions are bad, mkay?"

      When of course it's exactly the opposite: Unions have been committing theft and setting us up for economic collapse for a long time, but quietly below the surface, and like-mindeds that control the vast majority of t

  • I would reply point by point but it isn't worth it

    "Leverage would then be only in the form of an absolutely ginormous constituency's lobbying voice. No strikes, as this is just another way unions currently damage businesses, and hence indirectly themselves."
    On this - get fucked.
    Can't strike - that makes you a slave. Illegal to not show up for work? The day a job says I can't strike I will not be there on principle.

    Union people have died for standing up for themselves and others. You mister non-unionist c

    • I accept your apology not for the bluntness, but the hysterics: I reject your presented false choice of union tyranny or else mgmt. tyranny. I think workers can (and should) have something where we're not enslaved by either devil. And I reject the moral relativism of cheating being okay when it's handed to you.

      Simply put, as a Leftist you are one of the enemies of the worker, for wishing to perpetuate your side's enslavement of us, and pitting us against one another in pursuit of unfair advantage over one a

      • I think the only way you could achieve that, is to do away with group contracts altogether. Require any business contract to be between two totally liable human beings. No group union negotiations covering large numbers of workers, no limited liability corporate employment either.

        That way, management can't become a tyranny- the manager who violates the contract with an employee is 100% personally liable. And same with the worker, 100% personally liable to provide the level of work specified in th

        • I'm sorry, I don't follow -- the only way I could achieve what?

          • "I think workers can (and should) have something where we're not enslaved by either devil. And I reject the moral relativism of cheating being okay when it's handed to you."

            To actually achieve that, you need management to be equal to the worker- and the only real way to do that is to end limited liability and make each manager *fully and personally* liable for the contracts he signs with the workers.

            • you need management to be equal to the worker- and the only real way to do that is to end limited liability

              How so? The employment contract in California is "at will", so no contracts are broken by laying me off.

              • At will employment contracts are inherently biased towards the employer, or towards management. It means they can demand loyalty from you without giving any loyalty themselves in return. If contracts were INDIVIDUAL, and management FULLY LIABLE- you could do what most executive contracts do, and make sure that in the case of your being laid off and replaced by somebody from bangalore, they owe you severance pay.

                And I guarantee you'll never get that from the type of "implied" employment contracts w

                • It [at-will employment contracts] means they can demand loyalty from you without giving any loyalty themselves in return.

                  How so? They can sever the employment relationship at any time and for no reason at all, and so may I.

                  At will employment contracts are inherently biased towards the employer, or towards management.

                  I agree, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Because unfortunately it is often the case that what damages business, damages workers. For example (and this is just a random example off the to

                  • How so? They can sever the employment relationship at any time and for no reason at all, and so may I.

                    The difference being that when they sever contact with you, they continue to receive a paycheck. All one way.

                    I agree, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Because unfortunately it is often the case that what damages business, damages workers. For example (and this is just a random example off the top of my head) if we passed a law (and forgetting about issues of constitutionalit

                    • On this and your response in that other thread, we simply don't see things the same way. I find that the Right-wing POV makes the most sense (as usual), and you find that the Left-wing POV makes the most sense (as usual). Even your new law proposal which sounds good on the surface, is actually pretty dodgy -- how many U.S. companies would then just leave the country for good? In essence it's saying that if you can do without American labor, you can do without the American market. For a long time that would'

    • BTW, apology not accepted for the bluntness only because it's not needed -- I actually appreciate frankness and getting right down to things. And it occurred to me that possibly you might not have the excessive and rampant greed and corruption in labor unions there that we do here, so YMMV. And Happy Australia day (saw the fireworks just now in Melbourne and the jets earlier while watching some of the Australian Open tennis on the tube).

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by tqft ( 619476 )

        "the excessive and rampant greed and corruption in labor unions there that we do here"
        You should read the history of the BLF (greed etc) or the Painters and Dockers (corruption and worse).

        We have also had unions in bed with management, the government and so on.

        We also have a lot less dead people, not completely unreasonable labour laws, not too shabby superannuation (retirement fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia/ [wikipedia.org] ) setup and so on.

        I think the problem you have is not so much a un

  • What's needed is to make sure that laws don't give unions any special protections (ie can't force companies to deal with them, can't force workers to join them). Other than that, the only reason companies seem to agree to ridiculous union contracts is because they figure they'll get the contract cancelled when the company goes bankrupt. Who the hell thought that paying for your employees health insurance forever and ever was a good idea (especially since the invention of Medicare)? Pensions are another i

  • Moo (Score:1)

    by Chacham ( 981 )

    Well said.

    I would like to note that not all managers are evil, now do they all have choices. But unions? Yuck! I'd sooner quit than work for those anti-democratic, self-serving, life-destroying people.

    I believe in people sticking together. But it only means something if they aren't forced.

    • If you're making fun of me, I wish you'd do it in a more forthright manner. I'm admittedly a politically extreme person (as is quickly obvious from my journal), and anyone is free to simply write me off as a crackpot when it comes to politics. I am very much outside of the political mainstream (altho I assert that it's almost completely only the society that has moved and moved far, and not me, and so it is today's mainstream thinking that has gone wacko).

      Of course not all managers are evil -- my brother-in

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Chacham ( 981 )

        Bill, i am not making fun of you. I enjoy your comments and JEs, even when i disagree.

        I did do the disservice of only reading the top half of your post (even the choir gets bored), so i skimmed and posted my thoughts. And that was what was on my mind.

  • Except for two things:

    There's a "law" coined by someone I can't come up with right now that basically any organization that doesn't start out to specifically be Conservative will end up Liberal. Like a Chaos theory for organizations, that they have a tendency to naturally degrade to greater levels of disorder and radicalism. And I would add the corollary of over time deemphasizing and esp. sacrificing somewhat the original mission of the org, to join the general pursuit of Leftism overall. So the charter o

    • my answer is *smaller corporations* balanced by *smaller unions*.

      I'm mostly open to that idea, the major caveat being respecting the freedom of the individual worker. So joining the union is voluntary, going on strike with the union is voluntary, and any money spent on politics by the union is only of the amounts of the total collected that were specifically conceded to by those dues payers. So if a union has 100 members and dues are $1 a year, just as an example, and 50 of them say they're Dems and it's ok

  • I didn't remember it until just now, but the description of your ideal union sounds like it comes right out of that old ISM cartoon [youtube.com]. They didn't like it too much there ;) Any such union would quickly become the plaything of those in and/or wanting power, no matter how conservative its bylaws.

    Old propaganda cartoons are pretty interesting. I like this version of The Road to Serfdom, with YouTube annotations to keep up with Obama and Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRQ3UcO5P8k [youtube.com]

    • Any such union would quickly become the plaything of those in and/or wanting power, no matter how conservative its bylaws.

      But I don't see that as a reason to not try. Worker and mgmt. power needs a balancer. If an organization becomes corrupted, people can leave it, like many are from the AARP for example. Besides, a union would only be worth anything if it had credibility. Say an outside force does corrupt the one true union, such that workers no longer pay any heed to what it says. Then neither would mgmt

Slashdot Top Deals

"Nature is very un-American. Nature never hurries." -- William George Jordan

Close