On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:51:21 GMT, "Alex Russell"
> wrote:

>"zztop8970" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>> "Dan Clore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > zztop8970 wrote:
>> > > "G*rd*n" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > :
>> > >>
>> > >>>>>Why would any company want their employees following organized
>crime
>> > >>>>>thugs?
>> >
>> > >>"G*rd*n" >:
>> > >>
>> > >>>>One modest regular payment to the OCTs, and, voilà!
>> > >>>>Labor peace. Did you really need to ask?
>> > >>
>> > >>"zztop8970" >:
>> > >>
>> > >>>That's not an answer to the question he asked, but to a different
>> > >>>question - "what are the benefits of paying the union, once workers
>> have
>> > >>>unionized".
>> > >>>But, thnaks for conceding that a union is nothing more than a
>> > > "protection"
>> > >>>scam.
>> > >>
>> > >>I simply answered wrjames's question directly.
>> > >
>> > > No , you didn't. The question was why wold a company want thier
>> employees to
>> > > unionize. Your answer is not a response to that question. Your reading
>> > > skills leave much to be desired.
>> >
>> > No, the question was "Why would any company want their
>> > employees following organized crime thugs?"
>> >
>> > On its face, this has nothing at all to do with unionizing.
>>
>> In the context, it is obvious that WmJames was referring to unions as
>> "organized crime thugs".
>> This usage of context to infer meanings is usually mastered by 6th grade.
>It
>> is never too late to take a class in remedial reading.
>>
>>
>My, My, My, but did the IQ of this thread ever drop quickly.
>
>But within the juvenile mudslinging there are a few important points being
>brought out:
>
>1.
>If I decide that my best interests are served by joining a union how do I
>make sure I am not joining a corrupt union that will simply steal my dues?

Refuse to participate in dues checkoff. And also refuse to sign any
contract which requires you to honor a picket line. Have you ever
been in on union negotiation when a union first gets into a company?
If not, ask someone who has. The FIRST thing on the table in dues
check off. They want that before they discuss anything else. Wanna
guess why? And every union contract with the members gives them the
authority to fine you for crosing a picket line.

>2.
>Why are freedom loving capitalists so against unions? Couldn't have anything
>to do with higher wages and improved benifits eating into profits?

No one cares if you join a club. People like me object to government
telling people they have to do business with the union. If I hire
someone to do something, that's an agreement between be and the person
to whom I and trading my money for the labor. If he wants to join a
labor union, the boy scouts, the NAACP or the KKK, that's his
business, not mine. If He sends a representitive to me to negotiate a
contract, I reserve the right to tell them to take a hike, and to tell
hiom to take a hike if he doesn't do the work. If he stands in frnt
of the business carrying a silly sign instead of showing up for work,
I reserve the right to cease buying labor from him and hire someone
willing to show up.

Why do the union nuts think it's ok for one party in the trade to
terminate the relationship at aly time for whetever reason he sees fit
but not the other? If the employee can quit whenever he wants, whay
shouldn't the eployer have the same right?

>3.
>Why do freedom loving capitalists NOT rise up against cartels and monoplies
>that distort the "natural" operation of the free market? Couldn't have
>anything to do with artifically driving prices and profits up?

Supply and demand. If you can get people to cut the labor supply to
drive the price up, fine! Go for it! Just don't demand that
government participate by telling the people they can't take the jobs
the strikers abandoned to walkthe picket lines. And don't block the
drive and otherwise illegally attempt to keep those willing to work
for a living from going to work.

>I would answer that plain old greed is the answer to 2 and 3. And the
>answer to 1 is a bit of due diligence.

Just don't sell your rights to criminals. It's that simple. If your
labor has value, you don't need a union to get the best price. You
only need a union if you are overpaid.

>A new question: are there situations where a monoply makes sense for the
>average citizen (I'll puke the next time someone refers to me as a
>"consumer")?

Depends on how you define it. There are few examples of where
monopolies breaking up didn't result in higher prices. The reason is
apparently simple efficency. The monpolies got that way by heavy
streamlining, cost cutting and underpricing all the competetion.
Imagine Walmart, for example, taking over all the retail housewares
business. They would have to do that by underpricing everyone else
even more than they already do. They do that by buying in huge bulk
amounts that small businesses can't. If they because a monopoly, that
effect would be even greater. All the wholesalers would only have one
customer to deal with making their operations more efficient as well.

Not that monopolies are good, it's beste toi have competetion for a
lot of reasons. But prices aren't the issue. For the consumer,
monopolies are better at keeping the prices down.

William R. James