Democrats & Liberals Archives

Autocratic Corporations Fight Union Card Check

Though there is a tiny number of corporations that are democratically run, the vast majority are autocratic: You do as the boss says or you are out. Yet when the House passed a bill callng for the card check method of forming a union the corrupt and autocratic CEOs, together with their paid minions, launched a campaign villifying this bill as not being democratic.

The same CEOs who were hiring union-buster "consultants" got into a high dudgeon, claiming that, if the bill passed, the union organizers will intimidate employees.

In the last few decades, business has gotten Congress to convert the NLRB from friend of labor to enemy of labor. In addition, business has become thoroughly absorbed in itself at the expense of workers. Now it treats labor as though it is in a zero-sum game: what's good for labor is bad for business management. Worse, they think of labor as just another commodity to be obtained as cheaply as possible. Under this new philosophy, unions are terrible and must be kept away at all costs.

The result has been a huge reduction in the number of union workers and the deterioration of worker wages to the point where often both parents in a household must work. It's time to restore some fairness. And the new Democratic House has done this by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which allows a union to be formed if a majority of employees sign a card indicating they want a union.

Simple and easy. But CEOs don't like it. Autocratic CEOs say that the current secret-ballot system is more democratic than the card-check system because card-check will allow union organizers to browbeat workers. However, as Jonathan Chait says, it's not the organizers but the business executives that are doing the browbeating:

The problem is that, in the real world, union elections bear little resemblance to this happy picture. Companies that face organizing drives have an enormous amount of control over the elections. They can hold mandatory meetings and barrage employees with anti-union propaganda. (Employees, obviously, can't call a halt to work for a mandatory pro-union propaganda session.) They can predict that a union will result in the shop closing and everybody losing their jobs.

And that's just the legal part.

On top of that, they can do all sorts of illegal things: fire workers involved in organizing, actually threaten to close the shop if a union forms and so on. Enforcement of these violations tends to be spotty and lax. Generally, it takes years for illegal union-busting firms to face any penalties and, even then, whatever fine they pay is often well worth the price of maintaining their bargaining power over the employees.

Union hater Bush has said he would veto the card-check bill. Bush will do anything for business and practically nothing for workers. If you remember, he held up passage of the Homeland Security bill until he got agreement that unions will not be allowed in the Homeland Security Department.

Republicans in general love business and hate unions. But we must push this bill. We must show the country that Republicans will not help the ordinary guy. Republicans favor corporations, without regard to the selfish, stingy and myopic policies of these corporations. We must open the eyes of the public to the fact that the ordinary guy has no importance to Republicans.

If you want card check, you must elect a Democratic president. If you want fairness in the workplace you must elect a Democratic president. If you want anything to smooth the life of ordinary citizens, you must elect a Democratic president.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 5, 2007 8:33 PM
Comments
Comment #210642

Paul, why should ANY corporations be democratically run? Of course they are autocratic.
Who doesn’t realize that at work the boss tells you what to do within the limits of the law and your job description, and that a workplace is not a democracy?

And why shouldn’t a company threaten to “close up shop” if they don’t like a union’s demands? In any case, this bill is not one that forces a company to stay in business if management doesn’t wasn’t too. Your argument is a complete red herring.

But nice try there—your attempt to make this bill a referendum on everything from all of the problems faced by workers to your desire for a Democratic president. It’s almost as though you want to see a bad bill passed just to make a symbolic statement.

All of the issues you name that concern workers can be addressed fairly under the current system. Opposing this law is not the same thing at all as opposing unions, and definitely not the same thing as opposing workers.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 5, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #210643

Paul,

Thank you for proving the point I was making in my original article. What this article contains are generalizations and the use of rhetoric to further a political agenda. Corporations are bad, unions are good, etc… In reality, some corporations are good, some unions are bad, some unions are good and some corporations are bad. Because of this we need the ensure that choice is given to the worker, the choice to unionize or not.

I’ll expand on your final sentiment to be much more realistic.

If you want more unions, vote democratic. If you want fewer unions, vote republicn. If you want to allow the worker to decide, free from harassment by either side, without a chance of having his choice by known and used against him, vote libertarian.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #210644

I still do not see why workers are not commodities. Or perhaps I should say, why they should not be treated as commodities.

Posted by: Zeek at March 5, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #210648

If the workers actually want a union why wont a secret ballot work? Why is it so important that the union thugs know exactly who didn’t vote for the union unles they need to know who needs to get set straight?

Posted by: Carnak at March 5, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #210653

Paul,

I find your phillipic on unions to be amusing. You berate the Republicans for being beholden to corporations, but then say nothing about the fact that the Democrats are totally beholden to the unions. My father has worked at the same mill for 38 years with over 20 of those years as an unwilling member of the AFL-CIO. In that time, the union NEVER ONCE endorsed a Republican. Unions have done little but look out for themselves. If you thought the Enron etc fiascos were bad, you should read about how the unions treated pension funds as an interest free checking account for the Mafia. And if unions are so concerned about fair employee recognition, why do so many of them insist on closed shops?

Posted by: 1LT B at March 6, 2007 7:16 AM
Comment #210655

Who doesn’t realize that at work the boss tells you what to do within the limits of the law and your job description, and that a workplace is not a democracy?

Ever visited Western Europe? In many places, unions are far more than the other side of the negotiating table. They are an integral part of running the shop with an interest in both the workers’ AND how well the company is doing.

The workplace IS a democracy over there and the union and its workers share the responsibility for how the company is doing with management. It’s something that never took off in America. And please — if you jump into the matra of everything that is wrong in Europe (yadda, yadda, yadda), please be sure to include how much paid vacation they get and how they don’t have to worry about health care bills. There’s more to life than the size of your paycheck.

Posted by: Steve K at March 6, 2007 8:38 AM
Comment #210661

“Ever visited Western Europe? In many places, unions are far more than the other side of the negotiating table.”

This isn’t Europe.

Posted by: tomd at March 6, 2007 9:31 AM
Comment #210662

Interesting arguements from both sides. Funny though. Both sides seem to be making the same arguement against the other. The management side is argueing that the union is greedy and self centered. The union side is argueing the same against the management.

Well, time to wake up folks. Of course the corporation is looking out for its own interest. If it doesn’t exist or is not profitable, the union has no jobs. And, of course the union is looking out for its own interest. That is why its membership employs them—to look out for their interests.

After all this, the fact is that many corporations overzealously pursue the profit margin over all else, and loose sight of their most precious commodity—yes, commodity—their workforce. It is also true that many unions overzealously pursue wage and benefit increases to the point where they cost themselves jobs for their membership. Look at the big three automakers for the prime examples of both management and union glaring flaws.

Card checking solves nothing. The most democratic way of voting is and always has been by third party secret ballot, and should remain there. If we want truth, the truth is best found by those unattached to the process, without opportunity for undue influence from either side. The secret ballot process is what best serves truth.

In general, I believe unions have served a useful and noble purpose in the past. I also believe they need to take a much more realistic view of the world when sitting at the bargaining table. I also believe that corporations, in general, have lost sight of what keeps them going at a profit—their workforce. Corporations are now reacting to the overbargaining of the past, and both white and blue collar workers are paying the price, not to mention corporate bottom lines.

Each side in this duel have managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Card checking will only perceivably contribute to the mess.

Posted by: Chi Chi at March 6, 2007 9:31 AM
Comment #210664

The secret ballot process was a method that favored management for years. It didnt work for the unions. Why would they want to continue down the road of processes that dont work?
The secret ballot works in a democracy not in a dictatorship, why keep pressing for a secret ballot?
Card checking simplifies the process and helps to takes away the union busting time and activities management has been using, so it seems it is very helpful. A fair and level playing field would give the organizers a fair chance, yet it seems the repubs are against a fair chance, if the unions are so bad why worry?
Why on earth would unions look out for management and/or vote in repubs? Afterall this isnt Europe, and management and the repubs have been doing an excellent job of watching out for themselves at the costs of the unions and working people.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #210665

j2t2,

Again, if the desire is for more unions, then sure, get rid of the secret ballot process. If the desire is for providing a method for individual workers to vote on whether or not to have a union in a method that allows for them to do so without a public declaration then find a way to resolve the issues currently cited about the secret ballot process without getting rid of the secret ballots.

Surely the democrats in office could have done that, found a way to put the process back level WITHOUT removing the ability for the individual worker to be protected whether they wanted a union or not. Instead, the current dems created a law that was focused on creating more unions, not protecting the individual worker’s individual judgement.

Congratulations. I’m sure the dems will be able to use rhetoric and demagoguery to further their political advances on the backs of the worker’s desires just as they claim the republicans are doing. After all, that’s what modern day politics is about, isn’t it? Not actually solving problems and resolving disputes but aquiring and maintaining power…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #210667

Rhinehold, Given that the process in the secret ballot law heavily favored the corporation, what way should the dems have written this law to allow for individual workers protection? And why didnt the repubs do it that way if they truely had the best interests of all in mind when the crafted the secret ballot process?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #210672

Rhinehold

” After all, that’s what modern day politics is about, isn’t it? Not actually solving problems and resolving disputes but aquiring and maintaining power…”

I am all too afraid that you are correct in this statement. I think this scenario is how most of us percieved the previous legislature. I think it quite apparent that they were more concerned about the preservation of the party and the wealthy than the needs of the people. If the dems do not in their alloted time show that this is not so then they too must be replaced. This is the only factor that will make all politicians sit up and take notice. If they do not perform they are out of a job plain and simple. Time will tell.

Posted by: ILdem at March 6, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #210673

“Given that the process in the secret ballot law heavily favored the corporation, what way should the dems have written this law to allow for individual workers protection?”

Maybe put a time limit from the decision to vote and the actual election. Or possibly freeze firings untill after the election.

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure with all their aides the Dems could come up with something.

“why didnt the repubs do it that way if they truely had the best interests of all in mind when the crafted the secret ballot process?”

Possibly they didn’t forsee the problem.

Question… If this all started and has been a problem since the NLRB was formed, why haven’t the Dems addressed the problem before?


Posted by: tomd at March 6, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #210739

tomd,

Does the fact that this isn’t Europe mean to you that we have nothing to learn from them? Who do we learn from?

Posted by: Steve K at March 6, 2007 3:09 PM
Comment #210752

“Does the fact that this isn’t Europe mean to you that we have nothing to learn from them? Who do we learn from?”

I don’t want to live with their socialist business ideas.

Posted by: tomd at March 6, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #210761

tomd,
You’re condemning them because of a word, not anything substantive.

Posted by: Steve K at March 6, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #210766

Steve, if you want to go by the numbers, the U.S.’s economy as a whole is more powerful than any in the world. We have the eighth highest nominal GDP per capita (a slightly unreliable statistic due to the fact that cost of living is not taken into account), and the third highest purchasing power per capita (behind Norway and Luxemborg).

I am sure there are still plenty of personal reasons one could have for supporting unions, but really, when it comes to the numbers I do not see that there is a strong argument for unions.

Posted by: Zeek at March 6, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #210784

The problem is not so much a secret ballot. The problem is the period of time management has to intimidate,fire,transfer,bribe,bully,stack workers bofore the election. If the election were to take place,say, within 24 hours of proof of a card check majority there would be no problem. That is a poible compromise.
The bill also calls for maleing labor law violators personally liable. I would prefer jail time but this would help.
Another thing in the bill is a requiement that first contract impasses go to binding arbitration. This would prevent another union busting tactic. That of delay.
Unions can and have supported Reps. My union,the Carpentrers , endorsed and contributed to Rep Pombo in the last election. He lost,thankfully but he had supported us in some matters with our REP governor. If REPs want union support all they have to do is support workers,especially on this bill. Some will and will get support.Unions are a bit like the NRA. They are both single issue. Usually the NRA support REPs but sometimes they will support DEMs that agree with them on some issues. One example I know of is Rep. Mike Thomson D. Saint Helena.

LO.Companies are not democracies. Unions are. This is by law. Companies are licensed to operate by a democracy and can be closed by same.

tomd
One reason this fairly old law has become a problem is that there are now firms that specialize in union busting out there. They use lawyers,thugs, pr people etc. that employ legal and illegal tactics. They are good at it and an estimated 80% of companies faceing a union election hire them. Bear in mind that unions do not even try to organize unions unless the workers at that company have real problems. These are not nice people.

1LT B

All union trust funds,pension etc. are jointly administered by management and union trustees. This is by law.They are also under much scrutiny.The notion of massive corruption is a propaganda creation fostered by ignorance.

Zeek
The need for a union is case by case. Some industries and companies need unionization. The country needs union as the ONLY institution that speaks for the needs of workers. We take a lot of things that unions have provided to us for granted. Saturdays off for one thing. The 40 hour work week is another. Sure,some work longer etc. but the standard has been set by unions.

Posted by: BillS at March 6, 2007 8:45 PM
Comment #210794

BillS, true, but legislation is not going to be able to make case by case distinctions. We need to address the problem as an aggregate issue. True, there will be inequities, but it seems to me that the alternative would be worse.

To be clearer, when I say worse, I mean for the economy at large (just in case someone tries to come back with how beneficial unions are for workers).

Posted by: Zeek at March 6, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #210801

Zeek
The economy at large is very much a product of how well workers are doing. We live in what is still a consumer based economy. Having too much wealth concentration at the top indangers the economy and social stability. The rise of the middle class is largely an outgrowth of the unionism of the post war period. One does not have to be a member to recieve the benefits. The standard gets set,set by the way,not by the ham handed actions of the government(ie minimum wage) but in the market place. What unions do basically is give the workers some barginning power in negotiations. This is a good and necessary function to balance the excesses of capitalism that even its strongest proponants admit can occur.

Posted by: BillS at March 6, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #210809

Paul
You made one error. It is not congress that controls the NLRB. The commisioners are appointed by the president. Bush has put anti-union people on it.No surprise. Their best weapon is delay.

Posted by: BillS at March 6, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #210858

if you want to go by the numbers, the U.S.’s economy as a whole is more powerful than any in the world.

And as I pointed out earlier, numbers are far from the entire picture.


What sort of number do you put behind guaranteed 4-weeks vacation each year? What number quantifies the value of guaranteed health care?
Both exist throughout Europe, and both would not exist except for Europe’s strong unions.

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 8:01 AM
Comment #210859

“tomd,
You’re condemning them because of a word, not anything substantive.

Posted by: Steve K at March 6, 2007 04:39 PM”

That’s not a comdemnation. It is a statement.

I don’t want to live under their socialist rules.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 8:19 AM
Comment #210864

tomd, it’s a waste of time discussing anything with you. “socialist rules.” What are those? Can you cite some meaningful, significant ones? Is 4-weeks vacation a socialist rule? Once you cite one, can you explain why you don’t want to live under them? What makes them so bad you dismiss them outright???

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #210868

“tomd, it’s a waste of time discussing anything with you.”

Then don’t. I really don’t care if you respond to my posts or not.

““socialist rules.” What are those? Can you cite some meaningful, significant ones?”

Are you doubting that western Europe’s economy is largely socialistic?

“Is 4-weeks vacation a socialist rule?”

It might be. It depends on how it is established. If it is mandated by the government, I would call it socialist. If it is negotiated, then it wouldn’t be.

“Once you cite one, can you explain why you don’t want to live under them? What makes them so bad you dismiss them outright???”

one word….FREEDOM.


Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 9:21 AM
Comment #210870

BTW. I wouldn’t accept a 4 week vacation. I have negotiated for 6 weeks vacation.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #210876

BillS,
“The economy at large is very much a product of how well workers are doing.”

If by “well” you mean how capable and healthy workers are, I quite agree with you. But that still does not prove easier access to unions is going to help the economy.

“We live in what is still a consumer based economy. Having too much wealth concentration at the top indangers the economy and social stability.”

Now you are bringing up different issues that can be addressed in more fitting ways than with unions. If you do not like wealth concentration, fight it with higher estate taxes. If you want consumers to continually flourish, ensure that competition is always present among sellers. You do not need unions at all if you want to avoid the pit falls of capitalism.

Steve, you were the one that asked for substative information. The so called “value” of 4 weeks vacation is completely nominitive. I suppose healthcare is a slightly different matter as it can have a measurable effect on a workers productivity, but if you are looking for substance I do not see how you can avoid using numbers. At the very least you need to give me something more tangible than the abstracts of leisure.


Posted by: Zeek at March 7, 2007 9:43 AM
Comment #210882

At the very least you need to give me something more tangible than the abstracts of leisure.

Zeek,
That is my point. By focusing entirely on something “tangible” like per capita income, you lose sight on other things that people value, like the security and comfort they get from vacations and health care. Money is not the only thing people value, or you can put a “value” to. As Mitch Ablom wrote: no one lays on their deathbed wishing they’d spent more time at the office. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “nominitive.”

tomd,
Freedom to go shoot someone if you want to? Of course you accept limits on freedom every day. I just want to know where you draw the line and why. So far, all I know is you don’t like it if you refer to is as “socialism.” I’m glad you get 6 weeks vacation a year. Most Americans have only two. Don’t you think they’re getting a bum deal?

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 10:37 AM
Comment #210885

“tomd,
Freedom to go shoot someone if you want to? Of course you accept limits on freedom every day. I just want to know where you draw the line and why.”

No one has the right to shoot someone if they want too. That’s silly.

I’ll tell you in a nutshell where I draw the line.

I believe I have the right to do anything I want to do so long as I don’t interfere with the rights of others. Very simple.

” I’m glad you get 6 weeks vacation a year. Most Americans have only two. Don’t you think they’re getting a bum deal?”

Among those rights to do anything I want to do is the right to negotiate with my employer reguarding wages, vacation, health care, and anything else I want from the company. And no I don’t think others who only get 2 weeks vacation per year are getting a bum deal. They are free to negotiate with their employer the same as I have, unless of course they pay a union to negotiate for them. In which case they get what they pay for.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 10:50 AM
Comment #210897

I believe I have the right to do anything I want to do so long as I don’t interfere with the rights of others. Very simple.

What is someone else’s “right?”

Do you have the “right” to pollute the air even if it infringes on my “right” to breathe clean air? You are polluting my air, too, after all. Isn’t that one of my rights?

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 11:38 AM
Comment #210913

“Do you have the “right” to pollute the air even if it infringes on my “right” to breathe clean air? You are polluting my air, too, after all. Isn’t that one of my rights?”

You seem to be getting emotional. Calm down and take a deep breath.

This thread has nothing to do with air polution. Save that for another thread. As I stated, I believe I have the right to do anything I please, AS LONG as I DON’T interfere with anyone else’s rights.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #210918

typical tomd. Change the subject when your viewpoint doesn’t match the facts.

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #210920

“typical tomd. Change the subject when your viewpoint doesn’t match the facts.”

1st. You haven’t presented any “facts”
and 2nd., the topic of this thread is “Autocratic Corporations Fight Union Card Check.” I’m not the one changing subjects.

If you wish to discuss “rights”, I’m all for it, Get someone to start a thread on that subject.


Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #210923

“tomd
“One reason this fairly old law has become a problem is that there are now firms that specialize in union busting out there.”

And there aren’t “organizers” hired by the unions?

“They use lawyers,thugs, pr people etc. that employ legal and illegal tactics. They are good at it and an estimated 80% of companies faceing a union election hire them.”

And unions don’t have lawyers, and pr people? (I won’t mention thugs because I have no evidence of them as you apparently do in the case of employers). And if their tactics are illegal, then the Atty Gen. should be notified.

“Bear in mind that unions do not even try to organize unions unless the workers at that company have real problems.”

You saying so doesn’t make it so. I belonged to a union for over 18 years and on numerous occasions I’ve heard the union leaders talk of “convincing such and such company to organize and how many new members it would provide.” Unions are big business and in order to grow, they have to expand their membership.


“These are not nice people.”

Being “nice” is not a requirement for management or unions.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #210925

tomd,
I believe that people have a RIGHT to affordable health care, decent wages, decent paid vacations and to bargain collectively. You deny many of those are rights but don’t say why. And now you won’t even say if people have a right to breathe clean air. That’s how this started. I’m still on topic. I’m just trying to get past the perfunctory, skin-deep statements you make.

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #210927

“tomd,
I believe that people have a RIGHT to affordable health care, decent wages, decent paid vacations and to bargain collectively. You deny many of those are rights but don’t say why. And now you won’t even say if people have a right to breathe clean air. That’s how this started. I’m still on topic. I’m just trying to get past the perfunctory, skin-deep statements you make.

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 02:02 PM”

If you can show how the “rights” you cite are on topic with “Autocratic Corporations Fight Union Card Check” we will discuss those. Better yet, if you can get Paul Seigal to agree to have his thread hijacked, we can discuss it. If not, I’ll wait for the right thread.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #210930

If you can show how the ‘rights’ you cite are on topic with ‘Autocratic Corporations Fight Union Card Check’ we will discuss those.

You want me to explain? Here it is. Unions provide these for workers:

affordable health care because everyone deserves the right to avoid illness and injury that are easily preventable or curable.

decent wages because no one should be forced to live in substandard housing or forced to choose between food and medicine.

decent paid vacations because everyone deserves sufficient leisure time

to bargain collectively because many business owners will take advantage of people at every opportunity

I support these rights because they improve people’s lives. But here’s what’s going to happen next, tomd: you are NOT going to tell me why you oppose these rights. You are instead going to change the topic without address the fact that people in the US do suffer from preventable illnesses, do have to choose between food and medicine, do work too many hours, and do get treated like dirt by business owners. So don’t bother with that post. I know you are going to say it already. What I want to know is WHY you value your murky “rights” concept over the real facts as I have cited.

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #210938

Alright,
I still think you are off subject,but we’ll take them one at a time.

“affordable health care because everyone deserves the right to avoid illness and injury that are easily preventable or curable.”

Affordable health care is desirable, but not a right. Who determines what “affordable” is? And where does personal responsibility come in? How about the dummy we see on Jackass TV who tries to skateboard off a house? Does he have a “right” to be stupid and should we pay?

“decent wages because no one should be forced to live in substandard housing or forced to choose between food and medicine.”


wages are NOT a right. In a market economy, which I support, You get paid for the amount of work you produce or the amount of income you produce for the company.

“decent paid vacations because everyone deserves sufficient leisure time”

As stated above, I get 6 weeks of paid vacation each year. The only “right” I have to that vacation is thru the negotiations I made.

“to bargain collectively because many business owners will take advantage of people at every opportunity”

That IS a “right” according to our Supreme Court and I support it. I won’t use it, because I think unions are for the weak, but I support it.

“I support these rights because they improve people’s lives.”

I would like all these things for everyone too, but not by taking them from people who work for them.

“But here’s what’s going to happen next, tomd: you are NOT going to tell me why you oppose these rights.”

Let’s go over it again so you can’t mistake what I believe.
I think all of the things you mention above are worthy goals and I would love to see them. I DON’T THINK THEY ARE RIGHTS, with the exception of collective barganing as explained above.

You are instead going to change the topic without address the fact that people in the US do suffer from preventable illnesses, do have to choose between food and medicine, do work too many hours, and do get treated like dirt by business owners.

People in the US do indeed suffer from preventable illnesses. My wife is diabetic and has a heart disease in fact. Being sick doesn’t give you any additional rights.

I don’t personally know anyone, but I’m sure a few people do have to choose between medicene and food. It’s sad, but our future is something that should be planned for in our younger years. Am I responsible for bad choices she might have made?

What in the world do you mean that people work too many hours? We have existing labor laws that limit how many hours a person is required to work.

As far as being treated like dirt by business owners. Yeah, I have too. I once had the owner of the business I worked for tell me that since he paid me on salary instead of hourly, that he owned me. He wrote me my last check within 15 min. In America, we have the freedom to seek other employment if we don’t like the job you are on.

Did that answer your questions, and can we get back on topic now?
So don’t bother with that post. I know you are going to say it already.”

Better polish your crystal ball. This is the second time in the last few days that you tried unsucessfully to read my mind. Give it up…You aren’t that good at it.

“What I want to know is WHY you value your murky “rights” concept over the real facts as I have cited.”

My “murky “rights”” are part of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” I think that trumps your opinion that you call “real facts”


Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #210941

tomd,

I get absolutely no sense of empathy from anything you write. That pretty much says it all.

Posted by: Steve K at March 7, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #210944

“tomd,

I get absolutely no sense of empathy from anything you write. That pretty much says it all.”

I ask for no empathy. You asked the questions and I resopnded even after pointing out that the subject isn’t “rights” or unions. The topic is about the procedure to join a union.

And yeah, I guess you did say it all.

Posted by: tomd at March 7, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #210972

Steve, I apologize for any confusion. I meant that the value of a vacation is opinion based.

I personally do not share your view of the value of a vacation hour, or fair incomes, or other such things. Even if I did, I would ask that you show the overall level of leisure increases in the long run. As I see it, interfering with market mechanisms does not help increase overall leisure, but even if it did I would be opposed to it if it meant people getting something they did not earn.

Of course, we could go on forever about how one goegs about earning something, but I cannot think of a situation where you would need a union as leverage to take something if you really have earned it.

Posted by: Zeek at March 7, 2007 8:19 PM
Comment #211721

Right! We all know that the socialist and Mafioso leadership of dying unions are not autocratic, and if a worker votes openly against the union, he deserves to be beaten as an example to others who might prefer their freedom. It is the union way.

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 12:56 PM
Post a comment