I would hope no one is so invested in the outcome of any thread here that they actually get mad over what is said. I would hope the most emotion anyone would ever bother with, would be to feel sorry for whomever is mistaken. Hopefully it all stays always good natured. and. if anyone wants to go bare knuckles, please contact me off list, my address is in the profile I can suggest some places where it might be more appropriate.
I have to agree with all the positions stated so far, ALMOST.
Toyzilla, the fact (and I sure don't argue with the observation) that unions "seek to make workers equal which means some must carry others" is (imnsho) not as much a result of being communist as it is a result of any bureaucracy**. I think it has been observed that even [a brand with a large construction heavy equipment primary line] Dealers here in the states, because of their size, often are guilty of the same exact shortcoming (trying to treat everyone the same, not being agile enough to recognize or act upon differences in customer's and employees expectations, requirements and desires).
I also agree that Unions have a basic flaw in that the membership often drives the organization into a state where they are an elitist organization (you are elite because you made the choice to join the union, and those who do not join are not as special). If the union were inclusive rather than exclusive, they might get me to reconsider my own reasoning for never joining one, which is exactly that I do not wish to be part of any group that excludes people for some reason*. (however I do not feel it would be correct of me to expect anyone else to adhere to those same self standards).
Toyzilla's observation with regards to political party is incorrect as to particular blame, {place smiley here} but the overall observation is correct, people try to get the best deal. If that deal involves paying less to the people that created the goods or services, then that is fine to a very large percentage of end users. But I think you fail to get the 'over all complete picture', and fail to give credit to the giants that came before us, upon whose shoulders we stand (we have all benefited from the rising tide that unions brought to the working class, even if they are less than perfect).
_All_ -our- grandchildren will have to pay for our failures to control spending and to get proper value for what we spend, but it is neither Dems, Repubs, Conservatives, Torreys, Liberals, or any of the "others" who are responsible. it is each and every one of us who are the responsible parties, and that feeding trough did not only open up on our watch, we are also the children that have to pay for our grandparents and parents failures to recognize a simple fact; that being; that if you are going to pay for something for 30 years, you better buy something that will last 30 years or more.
[of course, imho, blaming "others" will never -correct- a wrong.]
*= the Mensa Conundrum is that if you are smart enough to join Mensa, you should also be smart enough to recognize the elitist nature of Mensa, and smart enough to recognize/reason out that any form of elitism is wrong at a very basic level.
**= and I do think it is important to try and correctly identify where a problems correct "root cause" is from. Heck, we all know there is no sense in changing the solenoid if the switch is what failed.
i know this will make some of you VERY mad but this is the way i see it and in fact the way it is. unions are a form of communism, they seek to make workers equal which means some must carry others. they take every opportunity to force membership anywhere they can (party members) and are completely intollerant to anyone not of the same mindset (join or starve) and for you union members who allow your union dues to support the democrats....look around at the economies of the states and you will see that the jobs you lost are going to right to work states and those states are booming while forced union states are drowning and bleeding jobs. show me a state or city that has been run by dems for any length of time and i will show you a ghetto with gigantic public debt. my grandkids will have pay for your poor judgement.
Sticking to the Union part of the thread, Unions tend to attempt to negotiate for all on the same terms which is not too bad when everybody have the same responsibilities and general duties and are strictly supervised. A Union negotiating for a mobile unsupervised workforce will try to get the best deal bulk of the workforce. This always leaves the bottom 30% getting more than their performance deserves and the top 30% getting less than their performance deserves. Companies match thier offers to the Unions stance looking to keep the middle happy. It is always better for the hardworking majority to have no Union involvement and negotiate pay, T&C's individually.
Unions are good for the weak and poor for the strong and i am happy with that as that is actually what they are there for.
I doubt any Union negotiated deal will ever please more than 60% of any workforce.