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 UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
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="JimJimmyJames" data-source="post: 543606" data-attributes="member: 11425"><p>JonFrum, wkmac sent me an interesting link that states in essence that even in a laissez-faire economy unionism would be allowed:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20111014052605/http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20111014052605/http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753</a></p><p></p><p>PobreCarlos, I think we might be able to agree that the unionized auto industry was not the cause of our economic meltdown. You can contend that being union is not helping our domestic auto industry to weather the current storm (I would not personally agree with that statement). But I think you would be hard pressed to prove to anyone here that the unions, who represent such a small part of the workforce anymore, caused it.</p><p></p><p>It would seem to me that the federal government, in collusion with the Federal Reserve, have brought us to our present condition.</p><p></p><p>And though the unions seem (and you would have to squint real hard to see it) to have the upper hand in Washington now, do you really believe that the Democrats are going to pass the unions complete agenda? Or will it be some form of watered down "let's give them something, but nothing too much, heck we don't want to alienate our corporate masters" revised labor laws?</p><p></p><p>For I would hope you understand, that there is hardly any real difference, economically, between either political party. And both parties are more beholdened to corporate masters with deep pockets then ever shrinking unions.</p><p></p><p>And the reason they are ever shrinking is because they are victims of their own success. When, in the whole history of humanity, the average joes figured out that the way they could retain as much of the fruits of their labor as possible was to form unions with their fellow employees and <em>contractually</em> (which business should find ultimately reasonablebecause contracts are the name of the game in business) lay out the terms of their employment, business has done their best to again unfairly prevent this from happening.</p><p></p><p>And the way business did this was by being a "rent seeker" on the U.S. government. How? Well, first they closed their American factories and resurrected them in countries that did not have the same safety, environmental, or labor standards as the U.S. Then, to import these items back into the U.S., they lobbied the goverment to be a part of NAFTA, the WTO and any other number of trade treaties or trade organizations designed to erode U.S. sovereignty and enrich the corporate elites.</p><p></p><p>By doing this, the concept of trade was perversed into one that the founding fathers of our nation could not possibly have condoned. Instead of traditional trade, where a nation imports items that are not made here, or where businesses who are based in foreign countries sell their wares here, we have trade in which our own companies circumvent their native workers.</p><p></p><p>This was a great way to deny native workers power over their production. But what of the service and construction industries that have to be necessarily based here? Why, we allow massive immigration, both illegal and legal, to take care of that problem. The more people we have to compete for jobs, the lower wages will drop.</p><p></p><p>Both of these fronts the elites who run corporate America have fought on could not have been allowed to happen without the full cooperation of our government. Now if the unions were running the show do you think the same result would have happened?</p><p></p><p>OK, I am getting as long winded as everyone else is around here <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy2:" title="Happy2 :happy2:" data-shortname=":happy2:" />.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JimJimmyJames, post: 543606, member: 11425"] JonFrum, wkmac sent me an interesting link that states in essence that even in a laissez-faire economy unionism would be allowed: [URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20111014052605/http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753[/URL] PobreCarlos, I think we might be able to agree that the unionized auto industry was not the cause of our economic meltdown. You can contend that being union is not helping our domestic auto industry to weather the current storm (I would not personally agree with that statement). But I think you would be hard pressed to prove to anyone here that the unions, who represent such a small part of the workforce anymore, caused it. It would seem to me that the federal government, in collusion with the Federal Reserve, have brought us to our present condition. And though the unions seem (and you would have to squint real hard to see it) to have the upper hand in Washington now, do you really believe that the Democrats are going to pass the unions complete agenda? Or will it be some form of watered down "let's give them something, but nothing too much, heck we don't want to alienate our corporate masters" revised labor laws? For I would hope you understand, that there is hardly any real difference, economically, between either political party. And both parties are more beholdened to corporate masters with deep pockets then ever shrinking unions. And the reason they are ever shrinking is because they are victims of their own success. When, in the whole history of humanity, the average joes figured out that the way they could retain as much of the fruits of their labor as possible was to form unions with their fellow employees and [I]contractually[/I] (which business should find ultimately reasonablebecause contracts are the name of the game in business) lay out the terms of their employment, business has done their best to again unfairly prevent this from happening. And the way business did this was by being a "rent seeker" on the U.S. government. How? Well, first they closed their American factories and resurrected them in countries that did not have the same safety, environmental, or labor standards as the U.S. Then, to import these items back into the U.S., they lobbied the goverment to be a part of NAFTA, the WTO and any other number of trade treaties or trade organizations designed to erode U.S. sovereignty and enrich the corporate elites. By doing this, the concept of trade was perversed into one that the founding fathers of our nation could not possibly have condoned. Instead of traditional trade, where a nation imports items that are not made here, or where businesses who are based in foreign countries sell their wares here, we have trade in which our own companies circumvent their native workers. This was a great way to deny native workers power over their production. But what of the service and construction industries that have to be necessarily based here? Why, we allow massive immigration, both illegal and legal, to take care of that problem. The more people we have to compete for jobs, the lower wages will drop. Both of these fronts the elites who run corporate America have fought on could not have been allowed to happen without the full cooperation of our government. Now if the unions were running the show do you think the same result would have happened? OK, I am getting as long winded as everyone else is around here :happy2:. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Is there anybody at the wheel at UPS that can pay attention to the real world?
Top