But we may not have to put up with the Union stealing for long with more States going to right to work.
That and the stupidity of the union tendency to kill the golden goose will rid us of the union curse once and for all.
Daniel J. Boorstin, former librarian of Congress, has written several books about the American experience. In The Americans: The Democratic Experience, Boorstin describes a number of commercial innovations unique to America that helped shape the country. One of these innovations was that items were made no better than they had to be: in Europe things like saddles and muskets and dinnerware and buggies were produced by craftsmen who made each item to the best of their ability; the Americans developed an assembly line approach that set a minimum acceptable standard for each item, and they made sure that not a single penny was spent to make any individual item stand out from the rest. The American approach meant the items could be sold a lower price than the European equivalent, and the most obvious example is Henry Ford making the automobile available to ordinary folks.
There is a drawback when you apply this line of thinking to labor, as the unions have done: instead of rewarding or celebrating initiative and creativity, these characteristics are actively discouraged, the quality of the workforce degenerates to the lowest acceptable level and union members become interchangeable automatons. Then the only thing that counts is seniority - if you can avoid being fired for a few years, you are considered more valuable than the more competent newcomer and there is no longer a distinction between ten years experience, and one year's experience repeated ten times.
This approach probably has some validity for a mind-numbing assembly line job during the industrial age, but it really doesn't have a place in most of the modern world where initiative and creativity are the keys to success. While most of the pro-union arguments on this thread revolve around wages, wages are not a real problem in a mobile society. The anti-union arguments are against the ridiculous work rules (e.g., Hostess having to deliver cakes and bread in separate trucks) that cripple companies by making them non-competitive.
The bottom line is that unions must move from the 19th century into the 21st century to remain viable, and that means rethinking their business model to something that provides a service their members are willing to pay for. And I predict they will not do that if their members don't have the freedom to take a walk.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln
Oh, really? Context is important. Corporations do not require employees to invest in the company, nor do they legally require anyone else to invest in the corporation. That is the context of Union legislation enablement. Your argument is specious at best.Corporations are legislatively enabled.
Got a point?