I was just wondering if you were also concerned about money from unions? To me, a millionaire donating is own money is somehow less problematic than unions taking money from their members to donate. Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job. Therefore, many union members may find their money being used to support candidates that they do not support.
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation? They are simply a competing interest in the game of capitalism, but they operate in exactly the same way, with exactly the same style hierarchies. To single out the unions is only taking sides. Attempting to destroy one cartel only assists the others.
well lets look at it like this. The union is nothing but a bureaucracy in the middle of you and your job. As such they exist for the sole reason of making money on their members, So I have to pay money to Group A for the ability to work for group B, all while group A is taking money from my paycheck to spend on their pet projects that I may or may not agree with.
remove the mandatory union membership for jobs, and let the people keep more of their own money and donate it to the candidates they like, rathe
You are overlooking the fundamentals of business. A union is a bureaucracy with all the same profit motives as all others. Try to widen your view a bit.
while this is true, im already getting screwed by my job, i dont feel i should have to pay another bureaucracy for the privilege of working for said job.
A union is in the business of selling labor, which is just another commodity like oil and orange futures. Naturally, like any other business, it seeks to protect and control its market.
Again, your experience is entirely anecdotal and personal, and it is obscuring the basics. The answer to everything lies in the primitive lizard brain. There you will find that unions are indistinguishable from any other powerful institution. People want power and money so they can get the girl.. The entire back and forth is
So unions are exactly as evil as corporations or more evil, certainly no less evil. After all, corporations do seek to hire people while unions often seek to keep people from working.
I would say more evil, a corp is a necessary evil, we need them. unions are an unnecessary evil, a parasite even. Think about it, people who run the unions get paid not for owning and running a business creating something, but piggybacking on the back of the people and companies who do
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation?
Mostly because they are.
You can be an electrician, and you can work for any number of companies or corporations, but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
...but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
Just another business protecting its turf. I do believe there is a process of de-certification that people can actually vote on. Your point of view is singular. There are other angles that illustrate the fundamentals of nature that motivate everything. The desire for power takes many forms.
The USofA ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it demands the freedom of association: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
In Canada, for example, both corporate and union political donations are banned.
Hopefully the American's 1st amendment can prevent that. It is censorship. Money has no influence of its own. It comes purely from man's fleshy, fickle, and capricious desires. You all are attacking the wrong target. It is passing the blame onto the totally inanimate object. It's like blaming the crescent wrench for being a lousy hammer.
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job
Do you have a citation for that? The only thing I know is that some states allow union-membership to be automatic once you're hired into a particular position at a particular company. That is very, very different from being required to have a union membership to get a particular anywhere in the state.
Furthermore, the big difference is the scale. It's a lot harder to get a large group of people to agree on a political course of action than it is to get one person to agree with themselves. The entire point of
Right, quite a few years ago my state wasn't "Right to work" and I was forced into several unions. They take the dues right out of your check, you have no choice at all. After my state went right to work, you could ask to be removed from the union. This had little effect on you personally, but for the first few years there was a lot of derogatory comments thrown at me. I didn't mind, I was getting paid more and the Union never did a damned thing for me.
Yep, I'm aware of union shops and right to work states. Just wanted to be sure what you were talking about, because your initial description told a much, much wilder story.
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job.
I've never understood this about the USA, it seems to completely miss the point of unions. Here, there are often two or three unions that are competing for members, so you get the benefits of collective bargaining and the benefits of competition. Collective bargaining via a monopoly that has no incentive to represent your interests is much the same position you're in with no union at all...
"influence" is an unmeasurably fuzzy concept that includes the effect of parents upon children, media personalities upon its adoring audience, and writers of leftist philosophy books upon those of us less burdened with intellect.:-) You surely don't mean to equalize all of those.
In union there is strength, a lesson the geek never seems to learn. How else do you suppose a day laborer can out-match the billionaire in politics?
Yes, and "union" is nearly as useful as "struct."
Geek humor aside, I am not actually against unions, but I am against making union membership mandatory. In an ideal world, labor vs. management would be a perfect balance. However, bad things happen when one side gets more power over the other. If management is too powerful, poor working conditions and poor wag
As if they were on opposite sides. Most of the 0.1%ers in the US are voting and donating in lock-step with the unions so being in a union isn't really helping the day-laborer in that regard.
I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for
nothing. I gave them nothing for something.
-- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil
Unions. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just wondering if you were also concerned about money from unions? To me, a millionaire donating is own money is somehow less problematic than unions taking money from their members to donate. Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job. Therefore, many union members may find their money being used to support candidates that they do not support.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation? They are simply a competing interest in the game of capitalism, but they operate in exactly the same way, with exactly the same style hierarchies. To single out the unions is only taking sides. Attempting to destroy one cartel only assists the others.
Re: (Score:2)
remove the mandatory union membership for jobs, and let the people keep more of their own money and donate it to the candidates they like, rathe
Re: (Score:1)
You are overlooking the fundamentals of business. A union is a bureaucracy with all the same profit motives as all others. Try to widen your view a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A union is in the business of selling labor, which is just another commodity like oil and orange futures. Naturally, like any other business, it seeks to protect and control its market.
Again, your experience is entirely anecdotal and personal, and it is obscuring the basics. The answer to everything lies in the primitive lizard brain. There you will find that unions are indistinguishable from any other powerful institution. People want power and money so they can get the girl.. The entire back and forth is
Re: (Score:2)
So unions are exactly as evil as corporations or more evil, certainly no less evil. After all, corporations do seek to hire people while unions often seek to keep people from working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation?
Mostly because they are.
You can be an electrician, and you can work for any number of companies or corporations, but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
Re: (Score:1)
...but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
Just another business protecting its turf. I do believe there is a process of de-certification that people can actually vote on. Your point of view is singular. There are other angles that illustrate the fundamentals of nature that motivate everything. The desire for power takes many forms.
Re: (Score:2)
The USofA ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it demands the freedom of association: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the 1st amendment to our Constitution reaffirmed that right more than 200 years ago but it didn't really stick then either.
Re: (Score:1)
In Canada, for example, both corporate and union political donations are banned.
Hopefully the American's 1st amendment can prevent that. It is censorship. Money has no influence of its own. It comes purely from man's fleshy, fickle, and capricious desires. You all are attacking the wrong target. It is passing the blame onto the totally inanimate object. It's like blaming the crescent wrench for being a lousy hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job
Do you have a citation for that? The only thing I know is that some states allow union-membership to be automatic once you're hired into a particular position at a particular company. That is very, very different from being required to have a union membership to get a particular anywhere in the state.
Furthermore, the big difference is the scale. It's a lot harder to get a large group of people to agree on a political course of action than it is to get one person to agree with themselves. The entire point of
Re: (Score:2)
There are many "right to work" states where you do not HAVE to join a union. Here are lists of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm [nrtw.org]
If they are not "right to work" then you can assume that you are forced to join a union to get a unionized job.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, quite a few years ago my state wasn't "Right to work" and I was forced into several unions. They take the dues right out of your check, you have no choice at all. After my state went right to work, you could ask to be removed from the union. This had little effect on you personally, but for the first few years there was a lot of derogatory comments thrown at me. I didn't mind, I was getting paid more and the Union never did a damned thing for me.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way: better description here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Basically, you can't be forced to do things like attend meetings, vote, etc. But you CAN be forced to pay dues or loose your job.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I'm aware of union shops and right to work states. Just wanted to be sure what you were talking about, because your initial description told a much, much wilder story.
Re: (Score:2)
So you had the citation you requested, but didn't think he had it? /boggle
Re:Unions. (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job.
I've never understood this about the USA, it seems to completely miss the point of unions. Here, there are often two or three unions that are competing for members, so you get the benefits of collective bargaining and the benefits of competition. Collective bargaining via a monopoly that has no incentive to represent your interests is much the same position you're in with no union at all...
Mod parent up (Score:2)
I don't have any points today.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that in many states, union membership is required in order to get the job.
Hey, this is about the USofA, not some commie fiefdom.
I mean, the US has ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that makes a clear statement about the freedom of association...
Anyway, the rich guy would have a great advantage over a poor guy and that's quite contrary to the one man, one vote principle of democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyway, the rich guy would have a great advantage over a poor guy and that's quite contrary to the one man, one vote principle of democracy."
By my count, the rich guy gets the same number of votes as the poor guy. You were saying ... ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"influence" is an unmeasurably fuzzy concept that includes the effect of parents upon children, media personalities upon its adoring audience, and writers of leftist philosophy books upon those of us less burdened with intellect. :-) You surely don't mean to equalize all of those.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, a millionaire donating is own money is somehow less problematic than unions taking money from their members to donate.
In union there is strength, a lesson the geek never seems to learn. How else do you suppose a day laborer can out-match the billionaire in politics?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and "union" is nearly as useful as "struct."
Geek humor aside, I am not actually against unions, but I am against making union membership mandatory. In an ideal world, labor vs. management would be a perfect balance. However, bad things happen when one side gets more power over the other. If management is too powerful, poor working conditions and poor wag
Re: (Score:2)
As if they were on opposite sides. Most of the 0.1%ers in the US are voting and donating in lock-step with the unions so being in a union isn't really helping the day-laborer in that regard.