Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i already mentioned the large-scale problem of sector monopoly, and i outlined a bit of what it is, why it came about and what it's meant earlier in this thread. for every anecdote you muster, there are dozens of stories that could be lined up against it that demonstrate what unions do well, the kinds of benefits they've forced into being and so on.
|
What have been the net benefits of unions in the past 40 years?
Quote:
|
personally, i think that the american fear of an actual political left was the primary motivation behind the sector monopoly model coming to the fore. if you don't relativize that model---if all you know about is the united states----then you imagine this model, with its advantages and *very* significant drawbacks are inevitable. but that's parochial. maybe read about western european unions sometime, ace. an entirely different set of relationships. working people are in the main better off there than in the united states---and, strangely, the kind of self-destruction of the manufacturing sector hasn't gone anywhere near as far as it has in the brave new world of rapidly imploding cowboy capitalism that is the states.
|
My premise is simple. People should not be subject to union intimidation practices. People should have a choice regarding union membership and a choice regarding strikes. I don't think the current legislation lessens the potential for intimidation and may in fact increase it.
What do you suggest regarding Western European unions. I know nothing about them. Why do they have different relationships?
Quote:
|
no way around doing a bit of research.
|
I know what has happened to real people affected by union activity. text book history has limitations. I would rather get real information from average people who lived it than through Phd. types who live in ivory towers. To each his own.