Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican/Democratic Divide: Business vs Worker

During recent elections, I have heard so much about Republicans being for a strong defense and Democrats for a wimpy defense, Republicans for faith and Democrats for secularism/atheism, Republicans for values and Democrats for selfishness, and Republicans for small government and Democrats for big government. All nonsense. The BIG and enduring distinction is that Republicans are for business and Democrats are for working people.

This distinction was made blindingly clear with the Senate's action today to kill the bill that would have given labor a better shot at forming unions:

The battle for the Employee Free Choice Act moves to the 2008 election after a handful of obstructionist senators have blocked a vote on the bill. On a vote of 51-48, the Senate voted for cloture, that is, shutting off debate.

The Act would have made it easy for employees to join a union without employer interference. Republicans pounced on the fact that there would be no secret ballot. In the past when a secret ballot was called for by the NLRB, a corporation placed the squeeze on all its employees and illegally fired activists during the 6 weeks or so before the election. Employers terrorized their employees to prevent them from joining unions.

Ever since Republicans destroyed unions this way and through other underhanded means corporation profits have been zooming and employee wages have been tanking.

Republicans applaud this state of affairs. After the Act was passed by the House, the great Republican leader, Bush, threatened to veto it if it came to his desk. And today, except for Arlen Specter, all Republicans - including the so-called moderates - voted for business, while all 50 Democrats voted for labor.

The following statement is incontrovertible:

Republicans are for business and Democrats are for working people.
Posted by Paul Siegel at June 26, 2007 4:25 PM
Comments
Comment #224153

The Act would have made it easy for employees to join a union without employer interference. Republicans pounced on the fact that there would be no secret ballot. In the past when a secret ballot was called for by the NLRB, a corporation placed the squeeze on all its employees and illegally fired activists during the 6 weeks or so before the election. Employers terrorized their employees to prevent them from joining unions.Posted by Paul Siegel at June 26, 2007 04:25 PM

Huh…this is very confusing. A secret ballot is bad for union members and a non-secret ballot will prevent abuses by employers. I thought every American wanted the protection of a secret ballot for protection against recrimination. How does this make union elections more fair and representative?

Posted by: Jim at June 26, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #224155

Paul:

Republicans are for business and Democrats are for working people.


Not true. It’s

“Republicans are for business and Democrats are for Labor.”

As for Democrats supporting workers, it proably depends on which workers you are talking about. Workers is a very broad category.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 26, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #224157

Paul,

We have discussed this issue many times here, with no definitive result. Both sides have legitimate arguements, and both sides have stretched reality to its absolute limits. I do have to say that making broad statements like “Republicans are for business and Democrats are for working people” certainly invites pointed, legitimate, yet sometimes twisted retorts. When you make those statements, friend, you deserve whatever you get. So, get ready, here they come.

One last set of thoughts. Aren’t unions themselves big businesses? No secret ballot means no corruption from business, but doesn’t no secret ballot also invite corruption from the unions? Please don’t try to sell me on unions not being corrupt, arm twisting organizations. Isn’t the secret ballot at the heart of our right to privacy (something Dems proclaim to defend when it suits them, just like Reps)?

“The Act would have made it easy for employees to join a union without employer interference.”

So, without secret ballots, you protect those who want the union. How do you now protect those who do not want the union? Are they and their rights less important?

Posted by: Chi Chi at June 26, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #224159

The current Republican leadership is for big business not all Republicans. The current democratic leadership is also for big business which is why they are supporting mass immigration into this country so that they can suppress wages. Why do you think there is no outcry from either party when countless corporate mergers are approved which eliminate jobs as well as competition in the marketplace. Why did the democrats as well as republicans support NAFTA? The answer is big business. What are the democrats proposing to do about the widening gap in pay between execs and the average worker? Raise taxes? Come on, all that does is result in a big raise to the execs so that they can pay the higher tax. Point of all this is to say don’t fool yourself into thinking that the Democratic party gives a rats ass about the average American just because they talk about the evils of business.

Posted by: carnak at June 26, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #224161

If the Dems were pro-worker, they would compromise on the secret ballot part and get the bill passed.
What the democrats are is pro-union (and only the big unions at that) because the unions give the bribes, um, I mean the campaign donations.
Being pro-union is not pro-worker. Please don’t confuse the two.

The bigger unions are only in it for the money, just like the corporations.

Posted by: Mark at June 26, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #224163

“Republicans are for business and Democrats are for working people.”

Soooo…what are you saying?

Are you saying that Republicans are capitalists and Democrats are Socialists?

Is THAT what you’re saying?

That the Republicans legislate strictly for the bourgeois and bourgeoisie (In Marxist theory, the social group opposed to the proletariat in the class struggle) while the Democrats legislate strictly for the proletariat?

Are you attempting to “play” the “class struggle” card here?

Posted by: Jim T at June 26, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #224168

Was this a piece written by Paul Siegel, or Karl Marx?… I’m confused…

But seriously folks…

Nearly everything said above in the comments section is true. Labor unions have become nothing more than big businesses in and of themselves, using the same predatory tactics so called “big businesses” use (sometimes, more so). In actuality, in today’s market and work place, they are becoming more and more irrelevent. There are companies leading the way in these issues that actually provide a nice place to work, good health benefits, and retirement plans that FAR outperform the dated union pensions of yester-year… I know, I work for one of them. I know that being optimistic isn’t really allowed on this site, but, I see a day when unions are no longer necessary as people and companies will be able to negotiate in good faith with one another and come to mutually beneficial work agreements.

Oh… and one more thing… there are political parties out there that are both pro-business and pro labor (they are not mutually exclusive)… the Libertarian party comes to mind…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at June 26, 2007 8:00 PM
Comment #224169

Paul:

I dare you to back up your words. Four years during President Clinton’s terms I was an Executive Committee Member for a local PACE union. During President Clinton’s terms, we lost over 10,000 union jobs due to legislation/regulation that prevented union logging jobs and in some cases ended our jobs while they were under way. Most of the jobs were lost due to edicts from the EPA and some of the areas that logging was prevented in have been a kinderbox while others have burned due to poor land management.

Most of the “Unions” endorsed President Clinton in his first election on the premise that he was against perement MFN for China. When he sold us out on MFN, and then again on NAFTA, the international brotherhood gave him a pass and never held him or the party “of the working people” accountable. As a matter of fact, I dare anyone to tell me the last time ANY of the major unions have held the Democrats accountable in a national election. To be blunt, the AFL-CIO, UAW or NEA national leaderships are whores to the Democratic party. The rank and file have no voice on which canidates the union endorses.

If you think that on a national level(actually I feel on the regional level)a union is worried about “the working folk” you are sadly mistaken. The direction of politics comes from the top down, not from the bottom up. Dissention blocks the path of advancement. It at that level is nothing BUT a buisness.

Paul, have you ever sat on an organizing committee for a union? I have. We were trying to organize into the UAW(I worked for a Tier 1 supplier for over the road truck frames). We were only required to get 50% + 1 of the hourly workers to sign the petition to hold a NLRB vote. The UAW required us to get 75% of the eligible voters to sign a pledge to vote yes. That was easy, and we got about 88% to pledge yes. We lost the vote in a landslide.

Company tampering? Threats? Absolutely not. We had weekly anti-union meetings, but all were allowed the floor for Q&A, and I was vocal. There were two things that killed us. First, when our brothers/sisters stepped in their booth with nothing but their consciences, they chose without duress. There are strict rules on what can/cannot be said near the voting spot and a member of the union-to-be and the company are allowed to observe and note any irregularities. None were noted by the union rep, and the company didnt even have an observer .And the second thing? The UAW went on strike against GM and the President of the UAW made a statement that they would bring the American economy to a standstill if they didnt get what they want.

If you have ever attempted to organize and IF you can tell me what one person has had his job threatened for the attempt(I openly wore a UAW hat and was never harassed) and IF you have observed an election and can explain to me how the secret ballot is unfair I will accept your post message as something other than shallow political rhetoric. In the mean time, IMHO this bill was just the Democratic Party leaving a twenty spot on Labor’s Management’s nightstand.

Posted by: submariner at June 26, 2007 8:00 PM
Comment #224171

Paul
I agree with Doug. Unions have become nothing but big business. IMO unions are worthless today. They do nothing but take money and do nothing, like some politicians do. I was a member of 4 different unions and neither did anything for me except take my money. If you want to know why some companies are moving, just take a good long look at the UNIONS.

Posted by: KAP at June 26, 2007 8:44 PM
Comment #224176

The secret ballot is a good thing that helps secure freedom. I support the secret ballot. I oppose threats and coercion of workers or anybody else.

Posted by: Jack at June 26, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #224179

What do modern unions do for the workers? Nothing.

They make big promises about higher wages and such, but the end result is just the opposite. They take large chunks of money from the workers and use it to bribe politicians. In turn, the politicians propose laws making it easier to extort money from the workers.

A lot of people fall for it. If a lottery is a tax on stupidity for the poor, unions are a tax on stupidity for the middle class.

Who would be against secret ballots but those who want the unions to be able to harass those who voted against joining?

National unions need to be outlawed. “Campaign donations,” or bribes as thinking people call them, need to be outlawed except those from individuals. Any politician who disagrees with this is corrupt.

Posted by: Norton at June 26, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #224182

I agree.
For more politcal discussion i suggest checking out http://www.3423.com/ it’s interesting- no doubt :D

Posted by: Cheergurl230 at June 26, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #224185


I would assume that most posters are non Union folks here an never had the privilege of being
defended by any Unions. I have been helped by the
UAW on several occasions from a big Corporation, an
almost all union members there would never get rid of
the Union no matter what you Anti-Union people think or do!
All members have the option to vote the Union out
an when is the last time you have seen any major Union
dissolved, I think some of you saw what happened
the last time a bunch of Anti-Union people tried to brake up the Unions. I guess you might say that
I am a proud member in good standing an appreciate my good wages an benefits,which the
companies are trying to reduce. By cutting our
benefits, they can spend more money building
Factories in Mexico and off shore! I would suggest
you all get a life an leave a good thing alone.

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 27, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #224186

You don’t have to be anti-union to be against union-sponsored blackmail and intimidation. Just as you don’t have to be anti-business to be against corporate-sponsored blackmail and intimidation.

A secret ballot protects workers from everybody—their company bosses AND their union bosses. That union leaders and Democrats are against giving workers this protection speaks to their actual intentions.

I think unions have had a very important role in our history, and still have a role—albeit a much more modest one because in large measure they’ve already accomplished their most important aims.

Some conservatives hate unions. I totally disagree. A good union is a force of free markets, and isn’t a free market supposed to be a conservative ideal? Workers provide a commodity—labor. And a good union is an entrepreneurial organization through which workers negotiate and sell their labor to those who want it. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve never understood any corporate types who want less regulation for themselves while also wanting to legally tie the hands of those who are actually their business partners (labor).

When unions go too far, and when the laws favor them unduly, they destroy companies and entire industries, thus devaluing the one thing they have to sell: labor. Unfortunately, that’s what’s going on now. The leadership of too many unions are too removed from those they’re supposedly representing and are more interested in political clout and their own power than the needs of those they supposedly represent.

That they’d even ask Democrats to legally deny workers the right to vote on union issues without attaching their names reveals them to be bullies.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 27, 2007 12:29 AM
Comment #224188

Paul Siegel: This is the “beauty” of the duopoly. You can claim that Democrats are for the working people, and many of them are. But many are also pawns of big business. But because of the two party duopoly where everything is black and white, you can easily overlook the Dems who are for big business and only focus on the good Dems. You are presenting a false reality, but it is the reality which our media and society is also presenting, so the false reality has became reality. Where things are simplified, when they should not be. Because NOT all Democrats are for working people! And NOT all Republicans are for big business! But with the “beauty” of the duopoly broad generalizations like this can be made, which only discourages individual thought.


Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 27, 2007 12:50 AM
Comment #224192

L O an Richard

Good posts!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 27, 2007 1:57 AM
Comment #224193

Paul,

I think you may be confusing being AGAINST business as being inherently pro-worker. One can certainly be against business and still screw the worker quite thoroughly. (Stalin comes to mind as well as a half dozen others including Robert Mugabe, who brought starvation to his country by evicting white farmers, thus screwing the average black worker in his country.)

The effort to paint business as the source of all evil is essentially peddling a “culture of fear.” You aren’t PRO-culture-of-fear are you Paul?

I for one refuse to bow down— indeed I will stand up and speak truth-to-power and not afraid to dissent from the hidden pedigree of marxism that seeks to enslave us all in the gray of equal misery and abject poverty which results from seeking to destroy the very fountains of wealth which have risen all boats on a rising tide of commerce within our equality of opportunity society.

Hail capitalism the creator, capitalism the provider!

Workers and business owners of the world unite!

Posted by: esimonson at June 27, 2007 2:10 AM
Comment #224199

I’ve seen the charming commercials against this. Charming as in playing on every stereotype imaginable. They even have the kid talking as if he’s out of GoodFellas.

In reality, the elections that they are supposed to be saving are nothing like the free elections we’d expect. In a free election, both sides have the ability to campaign. Only employers can freely campaign during a union election like that, and they can certainly do a lot to discourage unionization.

Eric-
America became one of the greatest economic powers in history at its most unionized. You might oppose it on basic principle, but the fact is, capitalism works only if money flows, and by their nature, most businessmen are stingy about such things. In Adam Smith’s day, (and its Adam Smith you’re going by) Labor was fairly free-lance, and industry fairly sedate in its pace and small in its operation.

He never dreamed of the kind of power and economic muscle corporations would one day hold. But he did forsee one issue: prices for labor do not go down alone. The market can exert upwards pressures as well as downwards.

Corporations can get enough labor nowadays to ignore the need to raise wages. You’re at peace with this, but you forget one detail: prices aren’t moving accordingly. The profit interest of the corporations encourages them to raise prices. Now what happens when folks raise prices, but not wages?

Capitalism becomes artherosclerotic in such cases, choked by the fact that corporations have the market power to work their interests at worker’s expense.

Unions represent the best alternative to this. Powerful as they may be, no corporation can make money without workers, and only when there is an organized presence among them coordinating bargaining on the labor disputes can they have the power to bargain accordingly.

But of course, any kind of labor organization strikes you as communism. Never mind that it’s their own profit motive that drives this. The fact is, in a day and age when workers can be brought in like cattle, with so little regard for the individual, the only way to keep oneself well-fed is for the herd as a whole to threaten a stampeded out the door every now and then. That takes unionization. It doesn’t work otherwise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2007 8:19 AM
Comment #224207

Are unions becoming obsolete, as KAP and Norton above claim? One only has to look at the actions Mall-Wart to see that the answer is a resounding NO. Can unions become as fat and complacent as the very businessmen they claim to fight against? One only has to look at some of the teacher’s unions to see that the answer is a resounding YES. So what it comes down to is this. Neither big business nor unions are inherently bad. What they are is easy vehicles for the greedy, the lazy, and the corrupt to abuse. I am not personally fond of business, and I am rather enjoy working only 5 days out of 7, so I must tip my cap to the unions. This does not mean that big business is rotten to the core. Chi Chi early on in this thread brought this up. Both sides of this issue tend to demonize the other, and that kind of black-and-white viewpoint is the problem, not either unions nor big business.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at June 27, 2007 11:08 AM
Comment #224211

L
Voting IS very black and white though and that is all that matters today.
Paul isn’t concerned about workers rights one bit. He is concerned about creating more union workers, even if its against their will, because he knows his party panders to them and gets the majority of their votes in return.

I can’t stand unions and have passed up more than one opportunity at Ford because of that.
But I would never advocate against an Americans right to vote for or against something in a private, non-hostile environment.

Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #224215

First, let me say that I’m not against business. We need good businesses to keep our economy going. However, I am against the tremendous power business has gotten by destroying the bargaining power of people who work for a living.

Second, I’m not for unions per se, but as a means for ordinary workers to gain some of the bargaining power they lost when the NLRB was weakened to insignificance.

Yes, what happens to the unskilled who are trying to join unions will affect all workers. Business is trying to keep unions down so that business can prevail in the market of labor.

Remember, business can outsource plenty of skilled and highly sophisticated jobs. Don’t hold your nose about unions.

Third, the secret ballot that is tossed about by business is nothing but a red herring. They don’t give a damn about the voting; they merely want to be sure there is no union to bargain with.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 27, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #224218

Republicans are for business and Democrats are for working people.
Posted by Paul Siegel

Paul,

I would phrase it such, Republicans are selling out our country to multinational corporations while the Democratic party is looking after the people and their democracy.

Point is Democrats aren’t against business but we are against accumulations of wealth leading to rule by multinational corporate elites.

The fact that we have to debate this issue with so many of our fellow middle class working Americans who defend these trends is abhorrent.

But again similar people sided with the last “King George”.

Over at The Gavel there is a report showing multiple hundreds of billions of dollars going to multinational corporations with no bid cost plus contracts while our own countries infrastructure crumbles.

Posted by: muirgeo at June 27, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #224220

have been in Unions which include URW, UAW, Steelworkers and painters and decorators. Neither helped except lightining my pay check. Right now I work for a non union company which has the same benefits that the union shops have and more so. We have a pension plan, profit shareing, medical, dental, eyeglass, company picnic, St Patty’s day luncheon, pizza party after new years, cookout in the parking lot in June, halloween party, and Christmas party, and I gross between 25,000 to 30,000 per year. The company has aprox 800 employees. Now can your union shops top this? The only way is pay wise.

Posted by: KAP at June 27, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #224225

KAP
They should kiss you before they**** you.

Unions did not do anything for you? Hardly. Ever get overtime pay or saturdays off? Thank the union.Many companies that have good benefits do so as a response to union shops.Thats why the business community often fears them. They up the ante.You are getting the benefits others have sacrificed for in both money and blood.In your book that might make you some working class hero. In mine it makes you a freeloader and a sucker to boot.


Lo
Pretty thoughtful.I take exception to your assertion that unions are responsible for destroying or forceing businesses overseas.Union leadership are not stupid and if a company is intent on moving there is no way their workers,union or not,can compete with slave wages.Furthur,most of the companies that have moved were not union. Most companies that go out of business are not union. Detroit is getting creamed by other union carmakers BTW.

Posted by: Bills at June 27, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #224227

Bills
Freeloader? Sucker? Because Id rather not be union. I get all the overtime I want and Saturdays off just like you union suckers except I dont pay 15% of my pay. I like what the Detroit News did about 9 or 10 years ago when their wokers were out on strike, the workers started to come back to work little by little when the newspaper weren’t giving in to the unions demands. Unions were good in their time but now NO.

Posted by: KAP at June 27, 2007 6:43 PM
Comment #224228

Bills
I don’t conceder myself a working class hero. I don’t need a union to negotiate a pay raise for me.

Posted by: KAP at June 27, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #224237

KAP
You missed the point. The REASON you rean extra pay for overtime and saturdays,the 40 hour work week, is a direct result of union struggles and victories.We do not need unions? Every year bills are put forward in congress to eliminate overtime pay or “re-classify” workers so they do not get it anymore. These efforts are defeated so far by the unions you say you do not need.
I am amazed you would brag about 25,000/30000 dollars a year.Seems to me that is prima facia evidence you DO need someone to negotiate for you. Nice they give you pizza. If you were in a union shop you could buy all the pizza you want.
Could be my amazment stems from regional differences.Are you in a “right to work” state? Every one of them is a low wage state.Sure live that way if you want but at tax time my state(CA) winds up paying for low wage states because of the anti-union policies adopted there.More freeloading.
BTW No union I know charges 15%. I would not put up with it. Unions are Democratic by law and intent. Heads would roll in my union.

Paul
This bill would help but is just a start. A repeal of the Taft-Hartly amendments to the Wagner Act is in order.

Posted by: bills at June 27, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #224240

Bills
Like I said unions were good in times past but now no. Yes they got us the 40hr work week overtime pay and a bunch of other things. But they got greedy and yes I do blame unions for the inflated prices we have today. When I was a union worker top wage was $10.00 per hr now that’s chump change. My first car was $4000.00 now that same car goes for $40,000.00. Why, wages go up prices go up. Sure I’d like to make $30.00 per hr. But what would it get, laid off after the company can’t make a profit anymore like so many of the auto manufacturers have done. Steel companys have closed. Why because they couldn’t compete with the foreign manufacturers. Companys had to cut back somewhere because you union people wouldn’t take any concessions. When you and your union brothers out there in CA. are out on your asses, then you can say how great your unions are.

Posted by: KAP at June 27, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #224242

KAP
Missed again. The 40 hour week that means you get paid time and a half is regularly assaulted in congress. Efforts to get rid of it are current. Efforts to change it so far have been fought off by union political influence.This is NOW.If we got rid of unions the next thing to go would be overtime.What that means is less time with your family. Less time for personal pursuits etc.The struggle to get it was a task of many years. People lost their lives in that stuggle. Many went to jail.The struugle goes on. Have a little gratitude.
Again. there is and was American workers could compete with third world slaves without adopting third world standards. That is why the steel makers moved to China. Americans can compete heads up with anyone in the world but we cannot compete with slaves and why should we?
As far as being out on my ass I will be shortly with a decent pension and substantial annuity. All from the union.PS we have picnics too.

Posted by: BillS at June 27, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #224244

Bills
I’ll be out soon to with a decent pension and substantial annuity to. But without union help. You can defend unions all you want but people here in my state and surrounding states have been really screwed by unions. Congress can bring up all they want about elliminating overtime pay. But how many of them do you think will have a job after the next elections?

Posted by: KAP at June 27, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #224248

Cheergurl230 says:
Has anyone checked out 3423.com? I’m serious they’re discussions are amazing!!

Posted by: Cheergurl230 at June 28, 2007 12:05 AM
Comment #224251


I believe their is a pattern here, starting in the
eighties S&L scandal, Corporate Raiders, large
corporations spending Employees Pension Funds,
closing an moving their Companies to Foreign Countries. The First of many of the largest Pharmaceutical Companies moved to Porto Rico. Then
President Bush tells the Companies they can move
off shore an not pay taxes. An some of you think
the Union is responsible for poor wages? I think
folks need to look under some larger Rocks!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 28, 2007 12:36 AM
Comment #224256

Paul Siegel-
Do you think the new Immigration Bill has anything
to do with NAFTA an it’s open boarders policies?

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 28, 2007 1:25 AM
Comment #224297

Unions are useful for those who are too weak to bargain for themselves.

Posted by: tomd at June 28, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #224311

Unfortunately for some people, they let emotions

override their Principal-ed Positions an have no

rational beliefs.

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 28, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #224337

stephen,

Maybe I’m just not as smart as you are but some of this stuff doesn’t make sense to me.

Eric- America became one of the greatest economic powers in history at its most unionized.

This is a non sequitur. One could just as well assert that many Americans were also still very rascist when they “became one of the greatest economic powers in history.” one does not necessarily follow the other.

Your comments reveal that you seem to believe that unionization creates economic activity. I’m sorry to tell you this but they do nothing of the sort.

I’m not against unions per se, but the facts are that the unions we have are at best cranky old communist frontgroups who take your money and give it to democrats.

You might oppose it on basic principle, but the fact is, capitalism works only if money flows, and by their nature, most businessmen are stingy about such things. In Adam Smith’s day, (and its Adam Smith you’re going by) Labor was fairly free-lance, and industry fairly sedate in its pace and small in its operation.

Uh, Adam Smith is great for the discovery and articulation of some general theories but I would not say that, “I go by” him in any sense.

When you say, “capitalism works only if money flows,” I assume you are affirming that trickle-down economics works, right?

He never dreamed of the kind of power and economic muscle corporations would one day hold. But he did forsee one issue: prices for labor do not go down alone. The market can exert upwards pressures as well as downwards.

That’s called the principle of Supply and Demand. And I’m not sure what you think it means that somehow Adam Smith, “never dreamed of the kind of power and economic muscle corporations would one day hold.” 1) I assume that by this you believe that corporations are TOO powerful. Dangerously powerful, perhaps?

Corporations can get enough labor nowadays to ignore the need to raise wages. You’re at peace with this, but you forget one detail: prices aren’t moving accordingly. The profit interest of the corporations encourages them to raise prices. Now what happens when folks raise prices, but not wages?

Capitalism becomes artherosclerotic in such cases, choked by the fact that corporations have the market power to work their interests at worker’s expense.

“Corporations can get enough labor nowadays to ignore the need to raise wages.” Meaning? The supply of labor is high therefore the demand is low?

So we need another dangerously powerful force that can short circuit the normal operation of Supply and Demand because there are too many workers, which is driving down demand for labor benefitting immoral corporations? And unions are that force?

Is this a ‘market failure’ in your mind as well?

Unions represent the best alternative to this. Powerful as they may be, no corporation can make money without workers, and only when there is an organized presence among them coordinating bargaining on the labor disputes can they have the power to bargain accordingly.

But of course, any kind of labor organization strikes you as communism. Never mind that it’s their own profit motive that drives this. The fact is, in a day and age when workers can be brought in like cattle, with so little regard for the individual, the only way to keep oneself well-fed is for the herd as a whole to threaten a stampeded out the door every now and then. That takes unionization. It doesn’t work otherwise.

So if I understand your argument correctly, a high supply of labor necessitates the organization of unions. Would the opposite then be true for the “proper functioning” of capitalism? When labor supplies are low shouldn’t the formation of unions be outlawed?

Another logical flaw I see is that you are against the ‘artificial raising of prices’ by corporations but suggest that capitalism doesn’t work unless workers wages are artificially raised.

Posted by: esimonson at June 28, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #224376


esimonson- I believe that your first sentence

is correct!


Posted by: -DAVID- at June 29, 2007 4:32 AM
Comment #224537

You are joking, right!!!
Be it Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Unions
or whatever name they conjure up, they all have
their fingers up our asses.
The only thing these jerks are for is to fatten
their own off shore accounts, while the rest of us
fight over the scraps they graciously allow us to
keep.
I guess it’s the old delusions of grandeur syndrome they predicated upon us.
We are taxed, fined, feed, dues, regulated, delegated, subjugated, etc. until we die!!!!!
Wake up, we have a snowballs chance in hell of
reaching their plateau.
Remember we are the peons, they are the elite, and they want to keep it that way……
So lets all go out and do our duty, VOTE for more
of these S.O.B’s and we’ll all meet at the government food lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Perry at July 1, 2007 2:55 AM
Comment #225259

Perry- No one is a peon unless you let someone
make you a peon. Some of the richest people in
the World were considered peons, no one has to
let themselves feel or be a peon. A person can
an will himself into a better frame of mind with
a little positive thinking. A person must be able
to take care of themselves, before they can help
others.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 7, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #232524

I am 100% anti-labor union. I am also anti anything that gets in the way of true freedom. If I own a business and want to offer you a job for $10 an hour (or whatever), you can either 1. opt to take it, or 2. opt not to take it… it’s that simple… or at least it should be. The problem with this country is that the gov is too damn big and gets involved in all sorts of shit it shouldn’t be involved in. Things should be simple and cut and dry. If you want to work for an offered sum then you work it, otherwise, go find another place to work. Oh, and by the way, I am NOT a republican nor am I a democrat…. I am a hard working AMERICAN who is simply sick and tired of big brother breathing up everyone’s asshole.

Posted by: IT DOESN'T MATTER at September 11, 2007 3:39 AM
Comment #268415

Employers cannot prevent a union from campaigning, but they can restrict it. Employers can lawfully interfere with union election campaigning by:
Time, place, manner restrictions - An employer can limit where, when and how union organizers campaign, as long as the restrictions are reasonable. For example, union organizers may only be allowed to campaign during lunch or break time.
Management campaigning - Employers can also campaign among its own employees. An employer has advantages over union organizers because it does not need to provide equal access to union organizers.

There are a few things that employers cannot do to interfere with union election campaigns:
Threats or coercion - Employers cannot threaten, intimidate, or coerce employees to reject unionization. For example, an employer cannot threaten “if the union wins, I will shut this plant down.” Even “hidden” threats are not allowed. An employer cannot make false claims. If an employer promises to do something to sway an employee’s vote, they must perform the promise.

All in all, the claim that “Democrats are for workers, and Republicans are for business” is absurd. Besides workers don’t hire more workers…businesses do. Workers don’t provide health insurance…businesses do. Workers don’t give you a paycheck…businesses do.

Why don’t we allow a “Free Choice Act” for the General Election? It would be much easier to vote for a President if we didn’t have to deal with the secret ballots.

I would like to see the unions opinion if a politician offered a “Voter Free Choice Act”.

-Robert, Teamsters Local 747

Posted by: Robert at October 26, 2008 5:42 PM
Post a comment