Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The employer agreed to it in a contract. If you don't want to join the union, then it's your choice not to take the job. They don't tell the employer not to hire you.

Talk about returning a libertarian style argument against a libertarian.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What about the legal privileges granted to enterprises?

Such as...?

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You probably also had better benefits and better job security.

I had some crap dental care I didn't need (I had 100% coverage already), and that was it.

As for job security -- what the hell kind of joke is that. I did my job and I did it well, that's why I kept my job. If you wanna keep your job, do a good job at it.

[Ramo]

Such as...?

Legal protection from secondary boycotts.

[Ramo]

As I said, look up Taft-Hartley.

[David Floyd]

Union shop agreements are freely agreed upon between the employees and the management, not dictated by the state.

That's a mischaracterization of reality, when you also face the fact that employers aren't allowed - in yours and Che's fantasy and unfortunately in some realities - to crush unions, by closing stores, firing employees for starting unions, etc. There IS government interference, otherwise why in the hell would most companies agree to the presence of unions?

If the contract between unions and employers aren't directly coerced by the government, the fact that the employer has to tolerate the presence of a union IS in many cases coerced by the government.

In any case, I have no problems with the existence of unions, as long as there are no laws preventing employers from banning unions, or firing employees for unionizing, or closing stores that bring in unions. That way, EVERYONE's freedom is protected - employees are free to organize, and employers are free to pick and choose who to hire and fire. Can't get much more fair than that.

[chequita guevara]

Good old Floyd, protecting evveryone's right to starve or agree to be a slave.

[David Floyd]

That's odd, I'm not in a union, and I'm doing fine. Interestingly enough, I get by through my own hard work and merit, rather than relying on government rules and regulations and bull****.

[Ramo]

There IS government interference, otherwise why in the hell would most companies agree to the presence of unions?

Ever hear of strikes?

the fact that the employer has to tolerate the presence of a union IS in many cases coerced by the government.

Yes, the poor widdle employers are being coerced into these agreements by the state, when the state prohibits employees from creating closed shops - and union shops as well in right to work states, conducting jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, and the state can slap down an injunction on them whenever they get antsy and decide to strike.

[chequita guevara]

So because it's true for you, it must be true for everyone. Good logic there. I guess everyone has a headache because I have one.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Such as...?

I consider the quasi-unlimited right they get to public property and means of production a privilege, and also the continual diminution of their taxes (which are then passed to individuals) as privileges.

Ramo also mentioned something that I don't know of. Perhaps he could resume it?

[Kuciwalker]

I consider the quasi-unlimited right they get to public property and means of production a privilege, and also the continual diminution of their taxes (which are then passed to individuals) as privileges.

Everyone has an equal right to "public property" and "means of production". The fact that pretty much anything with means of production is, by definition, a business, doesn't make it a "privelege".

[David Floyd]

Ever hear of strikes?

Ever hear of, as you call them, scabs? Ever hear of unemployment? Because I guarantee you, when there is unemployment, workers who go on strike CAN be replaced.

Yes, the poor widdle employers are being coerced into these agreements by the state, when the state prohibits employees from creating closed shops - and union shops as well in right to work states, conducting jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, and the state can slap down an injunction on them whenever they get antsy and decide to strike.

What's your point? Regardless of state laws about unions, I only support the existence of unions in the absence of laws prevented employers from acting - non violently - against unions.

che,

So bevcause it's true for you, it must be true for everyone.

Not necessarily, no, but hard work and a strong work ethic will take you a lot farther, in general, than a union will.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che,

Not necessarily, no, but hard work and a strong work ethic will take you a lot farther, in general, than a union will.

Nyet. The reason this country has a halfway decent standard of living for most people is because of unions. Unions gave us a minimum wage, social security, health care, and a lot of other nice stuff that countries which don't have legal unions don't have. Unions may be down today (which is why so many of the rights we won are under attack), but without unions, we'd all be a lot worse off today.

[David Floyd]

Minimum wages lead in part to unemployment, and artificially interfere with the free market.

Social Security is not sustainable, and quite frankly, there's no good reason I should be forced to save in a government account for my own retirement when I could get a better return privately. The only way around that is to either say that the government should be my nanny and force me to save, or that I'm not actually putting money away for my own retirement, but rather paying for that of others (which is part of the reason SS is currently unsustainable). As for socialized health care, I've said before and will continue to say that the US private health care system is near the top in terms of GP care, and AT the top in terms of surgery, teaching, R&D, and specialized medicine.