I'll admit I'm biased. I'm in a union that has already gotten me more money straight-up than I'll ever pay them in dues (two lawsuits on unrelated issues that both resulted in large cash settlements to their members) so it's hard for me to feel disincentivized towards union membership.
That being said, how would my wages go up exactly without them? It would open the field to more potential employees and increase the supply of cheap labor to my employer while diminishing said employer's incentive to provide benefits.
Like I said, find me a real "ghetto" in Boise. The quality of life here is such that we have mass migration here especially from California. The per-capita income in California is much higher. People don't hate living here, and right to work has never been repealed-and won't be. If for no other reason, we in Idaho are very independant minded, especially when it comes to being forced to pay for someone else's politics. People here don't like being told what political causes they must support with their union dues. That alone will keep this state free.
When governments fear people, there is liberty, when people fear governments, there's Tyranny
And my point is that de-unionizing opens the labor market such that it would make conditions indisputably less favorable for most workers. How would that ever be to their benefit?
It would be less favorable to the slackers and more favorable to the skilled and motivated - as it should be.And my point is that de-unionizing opens the labor market such that it would make conditions indisputably less favorable for most workers. How would that ever be to their benefit?
What's more, if someone is being a real dick, I'm allowed to redress the issue THROUGH the union. It can be my tool, and I have far more influence as a union member than I do as an employee, particularly for an organization as large as the one that employs me.
There's an illusion in this country that must be dispelled. While success is rare WITHOUT hard work, this does not mean that the inverse is true. Hard work does not always equal success, and does not mean you'll end up better than parasites, whether they're protected by the policies conservatives support or the policies liberals support.It would be less favorable to the slackers and more favorable to the skilled and motivated - as it should be.
As a rule, I'm far more comfortable supporting ten barely employable slackers for the protection it afford 90 hard workers than I am supporting ONE Paris Hilton at the expense of 99 hard workers.
And again, in both circumstances, schmooze has far more to do with success than effort.
With a union, you can realistically get together with your boss and determine, definitively, just what a days work SHOULD consist of. There is no great moral evil in that. Work can and should be demanding and challenging, but it shouldn't be increased in volume just on some vague principle about work ethic.