Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Right To Work, Cecil B. Demille, circa 1948'
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 662867" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Good post. A couple of years ago, Tom Knapp over at Rational Review wrote a piece entitled, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20111014052605/http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">"Unions part of the Market"</span></a> showing how unions are as much laissez faire free market as anything else but what moved them away was gov't intervention. Tom BTW was a steward and union official so he comes with experience in that realm.</p><p></p><p>Tie, you raised an excellent observation IMO where you said that you didn't think a union in a right to work state could be viable and would have to work extra hard in order to do so. To the first point, I won't go that far although I agree there is some validity but I do completely agree with the 2nd. But using your points as both true, we could also therefore imply, in a closed shop state a union can be viable and does not have to work as hard to do so. And I do agree those points are valid. Then the question begs in my mind, is the union therefore a gov't or quasi-gov't entity or is it a private organization? The initial intent was private but over the years I think the former point is likely more true than we realize although heavily regulated rather than quasi-gov't would be more comfortable for us to admit too.</p><p></p><p>But take the term union out and in it's place put say for example Joe's Hardware Store. I mean like this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>IMO by framing the above in such a way, it's does force us to look at our union and ask, just what is it and I'm asking as a 29 year IBT member?</p><p></p><p>The real question hinges down again IMO on just what are the true rights of the individual and just where a secondary or even third party can come in and amended, change, modify or otherwise move those rights around to where it best serves the interest not always of the individual but rather the interests of others.</p><p></p><p>It's not an easy question by any means and I don't pretend it is. There are all kinds of ramifications in this exercise but we also have to ask this question of equal importance. If a secondary or 3rd party can in fact force someone into a contract that they would not on their own choose to enter, then how far can that power of contractual force extend? And again, not always an easy question to answer either.</p><p></p><p>Again, many good points by all and I also agree in contractual association with profit sharing (Tie's point) but the first step towards that IMO would be to completely extract ourselves from Wall Street (something I think the overwhelming majority of UPSers hourly and management want anyway and agree we should never have done) and then some type of structure could be formed to meet those very needs which could benefit all. At the same time I'd want both the health and welfare plans to come to an end and those monies given directly to employee since he/she earns them anyway and let each employee setup their own means or form co-ops with fellow or like minded employees (something that about all UPSers, both houries and management in fact oppose) so there you go. Why UPSers say for example through the union haven't formed a variety of not for profit co-ops (or you could make it for profit with members recieving the dividends or creating for example post secondary education funds that pay for all members kids to go to college, technical schools or even secondary retirement funds within individual locals) is really kinda beyond me. Done well, this would be a huge incentive to join a union and the ranks of membership might acutally begin to swell.</p><p></p><p>Like unions, co-ops, for profit or not, are as equally free market with the important focus being on the word free as in choice. This more than any other was Demille's point IMO!</p><p></p><p>JMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 662867, member: 2189"] Good post. A couple of years ago, Tom Knapp over at Rational Review wrote a piece entitled, [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20111014052605/http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753'][COLOR=red]"Unions part of the Market"[/COLOR][/URL] showing how unions are as much laissez faire free market as anything else but what moved them away was gov't intervention. Tom BTW was a steward and union official so he comes with experience in that realm. Tie, you raised an excellent observation IMO where you said that you didn't think a union in a right to work state could be viable and would have to work extra hard in order to do so. To the first point, I won't go that far although I agree there is some validity but I do completely agree with the 2nd. But using your points as both true, we could also therefore imply, in a closed shop state a union can be viable and does not have to work as hard to do so. And I do agree those points are valid. Then the question begs in my mind, is the union therefore a gov't or quasi-gov't entity or is it a private organization? The initial intent was private but over the years I think the former point is likely more true than we realize although heavily regulated rather than quasi-gov't would be more comfortable for us to admit too. But take the term union out and in it's place put say for example Joe's Hardware Store. I mean like this: IMO by framing the above in such a way, it's does force us to look at our union and ask, just what is it and I'm asking as a 29 year IBT member? The real question hinges down again IMO on just what are the true rights of the individual and just where a secondary or even third party can come in and amended, change, modify or otherwise move those rights around to where it best serves the interest not always of the individual but rather the interests of others. It's not an easy question by any means and I don't pretend it is. There are all kinds of ramifications in this exercise but we also have to ask this question of equal importance. If a secondary or 3rd party can in fact force someone into a contract that they would not on their own choose to enter, then how far can that power of contractual force extend? And again, not always an easy question to answer either. Again, many good points by all and I also agree in contractual association with profit sharing (Tie's point) but the first step towards that IMO would be to completely extract ourselves from Wall Street (something I think the overwhelming majority of UPSers hourly and management want anyway and agree we should never have done) and then some type of structure could be formed to meet those very needs which could benefit all. At the same time I'd want both the health and welfare plans to come to an end and those monies given directly to employee since he/she earns them anyway and let each employee setup their own means or form co-ops with fellow or like minded employees (something that about all UPSers, both houries and management in fact oppose) so there you go. Why UPSers say for example through the union haven't formed a variety of not for profit co-ops (or you could make it for profit with members recieving the dividends or creating for example post secondary education funds that pay for all members kids to go to college, technical schools or even secondary retirement funds within individual locals) is really kinda beyond me. Done well, this would be a huge incentive to join a union and the ranks of membership might acutally begin to swell. Like unions, co-ops, for profit or not, are as equally free market with the important focus being on the word free as in choice. This more than any other was Demille's point IMO! JMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Right To Work, Cecil B. Demille, circa 1948'
Top