In the referenced article, writes:

What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

So you believe that a company's workers do not have (or should not
have) the right to decide who will represent them in a negotiation?
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

"Alex Russell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.

And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.

--
Alex Russell




There are not "closed shops" in American union contracts. They are illegal.
There are, however, union shops which is quite different. It is not often
that unions stray too far with union dues in the political arena because of
the controversy possible. By far most of the political money is from
voluntary contributions separate from dues. If, however, a union member
wishes to relinquish union membership he/she can do so and not pay any dues
toward political ends. I think this is foolish myself, when unions are more
worker friendly than other organizations and provide more return for the
dollar.

Insulting Dan was a natural response to his insults. It doesn't really
further the argument, but it ****es Dan off and that's OK too. Dan has shown
great disrespect to most of us by assuming he is the only person here who
"works" for living and has any grasp on "the real world" where he assumes he
lives. Read through a few of his inane blatherings and you will see why he
invites the same invective in return.

You on the other hand seem to have a civil disposition. Thank you.

"Alex Russell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.

And I still fail to see how insulting Dan furthers your own arguments. It is
possible for people to hold different opinions, and yet respect each other.

--
Alex Russell




There are not "closed shops" in American union contracts. They are illegal.
There are, however, union shops which is quite different. It is not often
that unions stray too far with union dues in the political arena because of
the controversy possible. By far most of the political money is from
voluntary contributions separate from dues. If, however, a union member
wishes to relinquish union membership he/she can do so and not pay any dues
toward political ends. I think this is foolish myself, when unions are more
worker friendly than other organizations and provide more return for the
dollar.

Insulting Dan was a natural response to his insults. It doesn't really
further the argument, but it ****es Dan off and that's OK too. Dan has shown
great disrespect to most of us by assuming he is the only person here who
"works" for living and has any grasp on "the real world" where he assumes he
lives. Read through a few of his inane blatherings and you will see why he
invites the same invective in return.

You on the other hand seem to have a civil disposition. Thank you.

:
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.

"G*rd*n" :
I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
for the worse.

:
No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
business.

If you're trying to say that all unions are criminal
organizations, you'll have to provide a lot of evidence
presently missing. I suspected you meant this, but chose to
take your question in square mode for the sake of a little
humor. In fact, some business managers have liked to deal
with unions under the control of organized crime thugs, just
as they sometimes like to deal with other businesses under
the control of organized crime thugs, or governments under
the control of organized crime thugs. Usually, this is
because they are organized crime thugs themselves. I
don't find them or their situation very interesting.

As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
of the rights of association, contract and representation
supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
in this regard.

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

:
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.

"G*rd*n" :
I simply answered wrjames's question directly. Although it
hardly seems possible, your reading skills have taken a turn
for the worse.

:
No you didn't. You answered why a company would want to pay off the
mob running the union. My question was why theu would want their
employees following a mob boss instead of the managers of the
business.

If you're trying to say that all unions are criminal
organizations, you'll have to provide a lot of evidence
presently missing. I suspected you meant this, but chose to
take your question in square mode for the sake of a little
humor. In fact, some business managers have liked to deal
with unions under the control of organized crime thugs, just
as they sometimes like to deal with other businesses under
the control of organized crime thugs, or governments under
the control of organized crime thugs. Usually, this is
because they are organized crime thugs themselves. I
don't find them or their situation very interesting.

As things stand, unions are simply one possible expression
of the rights of association, contract and representation
supposedly possessed by everyone, including employees. Like
other organizations, they may be occasionally captured or
subverted by organized crime thugs. They are hardly unique
in this regard.

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

...

:
Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?


A truly open market is open to the possibility of cabals --
contracts between suppliers to limit or regulate the supply,
and thus regulate the price. In itself, there is nothing
thuggish about such an arrangement. In some cases the
overall price may actually be lowered by such an
arrangement. Anecdote on request.

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

...

:
Are you saying that youcan't get a better price for your labor on the
open market, and that you need a thug organization to keep your price
artificially high?


A truly open market is open to the possibility of cabals --
contracts between suppliers to limit or regulate the supply,
and thus regulate the price. In itself, there is nothing
thuggish about such an arrangement. In some cases the
overall price may actually be lowered by such an
arrangement. Anecdote on request.

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

"Alex Russell" :
...
The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.
...


A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.


--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

"Alex Russell" :
...
The only problem I have with unions are the "closed shop" rules, but of
course the unions wouldn't have much power without those rules.

I don't like the closed shop rules as they infringe a lot on a person's
right to enter into contracts. I also don't like having unions use members
dues to promote policies that many members disagree with, eg political
contributions.
...


A closed shop is the outcome of the normal use of the rights
of association and contract. It is not the closed shop
which infringes on the rights of contract, but laws against
the closed shop.


--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

In alt.coffee Xyzzy wrote:
In the USA people have the right to form a board of representatives on
either side of the field.

The Patriot act might change that..
Hello corporate rule..
goodbye to the rights of the person..

In alt.coffee Xyzzy wrote:
In the USA people have the right to form a board of representatives on
either side of the field.

The Patriot act might change that..
Hello corporate rule..
goodbye to the rights of the person..

**** a union
just kidding
stop having children
and rewild ourselves.
for anarchy, not industry.

**** a union
just kidding
stop having children
and rewild ourselves.
for anarchy, not industry.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote:

In the referenced article, writes:

What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

So you believe that a company's workers do not have (or should not
have) the right to decide who will represent them in a negotiation?

Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
deal but demands something more.

If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?

William R. James

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
wrote:

In the referenced article, writes:

What a crock! I want government to protect all people's freedom to
trade. That includes the workers' right to trade their labor for
whatever they want, whether more or les than what you or a union or a
company think is enough. It also includes those joining unions right
to only trade their labor collectively. It also includes a company's
right NOT to trade with those who insist on trading their labor
collectively.

So you believe that a company's workers do not have (or should not
have) the right to decide who will represent them in a negotiation?

Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
deal but demands something more.

If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?

William R. James