 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Floyd's objection to Unions is, I believe, based upon the government's actions. The government in the USA requires companies to recognize workers who want to unionize whether or not they want to, are not allowed to fire pro-union workers, and I believe may not shut down stores specifically because it decided to go union.
Of course, if Floyd did have his way here, it would mean to a large scale degradation of living standards for a lot of people.. |
If that's the basis of his objections, then I could agree. But he seemed rather to be siding with Walmart in their union breaking activity.
Agreeing that Walmart should have a right to fight unions is different from supporting that fight.
Hmmm... maybe I should unionize the autoparts store I work at. That'd be fun.  We get paid crap, they don't give out overtime, and management often adjusts people's hours down so they don't go over their 40. Even though they work more than 40, they are only paid for 40. Plus the store is totally understaffed, so if we threatened a walk out they couldn't just bring in a bunch of scabs. They'd be screwed. 
Damn, that'd be freaken awesome. Low-level retail workers of the world unite!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Ozzy
Another anarchist convert? |
Ha, not a chance. I'm far from an anarcho-capitalist, and farther yet from an anarcho-communist.
But I don't see how a libertarian can oppose unions. In a world without the huge government bureacracy looking out for labor rights then the people have to do it themselves. That manifests itself through institutions such as unions. They are essential, and imho even more essential with a scaled back government.
I want more unions. Every industry should be unionized. There should be "consumers unions" to get consumers to coordinate buying behavior to control company's actions/inactions.
Its a practical problem that I see a lot with libertarians. They rightfully oppose government overstepping its bounds by intervening in x, y and z, but don't recognize that often x, y, and z are still important things that must be done and should be done instead by a non-governmental entity. If we don't have welfare and social security, then we as private individuals, associations and corporations have to step up to help out those in need. Kicking the poor to the curb is NOT a solution. They need just as much help as now, just in a different form. If libertarians aren't stepping up to create/fund/provide those alternatives, they are hypocrites.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Floyd's objection to Unions is, I believe, based upon the government's actions. The government in the USA requires companies to recognize workers who want to unionize whether or not they want to, are not allowed to fire pro-union workers, and I believe may not shut down stores specifically because it decided to go union. |
Essentially. I don't oppose unions, per se - what I oppose are government protections for unions. If workers want to unionize, fine. And if businesses want to fire them because of that, that should be fine as well.
Now, personally speaking, I do oppose unions. I believe that they are counter-productive towards things such as a work ethic and personal responsibility. If one can just go crying to the union over some perceived slight, and the union backs the worker up 100% every time, that really isn't productive. If a union can force a business to pay workers far out of proportion to their actual worth, that is also counterproductive - although this objection is easily fixed by simply making sure that businesses are allowed to fire workers for ANY reason (including union participation).
And, as has been pointed out, unions have been notoriously corrupt.
But yes, as a Libertarian, I support the right of workers to unionize - just as strongly as I support the right of employers to fire their asses for being demanding little shits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
Ozzy,
quote:
Whether worker run businesses can run it well enough to compete in a free market or not is another question. But I'm all for giving it a go. |
I'm not. I strongly oppose populism in every form, because I realize that at least 80% of the population is stupider than me, and I don't want tens of millions of stupid people running things.
I'd much rather have business-savvy millionaires running businesses than ignorant blue collar workers who are more concerned about the welfare of each individual employee than they are about business needs/production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Its a practical problem that I see a lot with libertarians. They rightfully oppose government overstepping its bounds by intervening in x, y and z, but don't recognize that often x, y, and z are still important things that must be done and should be done instead by a non-governmental entity. If we don't have welfare and social security, then we as private individuals, associations and corporations have to step up to help out those in need. Kicking the poor to the curb is NOT a solution. They need just as much help as now, just in a different form. If libertarians aren't stepping up to create/fund/provide those alternatives, they are hypocrites. |
The issue with most Libertarians is NOT the utility of the program - that is, we aren't interested in whether or not a particular program is more efficient in helping others. We're simply interested in how individual liberty is affected.
You say that in the absence of government programs, Libertarians should step in, or else they are hypocrites. That's very inaccurate. No Libertarian that I know claims that there is a universal duty to give to others, and as such it isn't hypocritical for Libertarians, or anyone else, to NOT fund charity programs, private or otherwise.
Greed and selfishness are not necessarily bad things, after all. The connotations of those words just lead some to think that they are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
But he seemed rather to be siding with Walmart in their union breaking activity. |
Yep. I believe that unions tend to be bad for business, and quite frankly, I am more concerned with how well business is functioning than I am with the comfort level of employees, who, by the way, make FAR more in the US than they would in many other countries in the world, even adjusted for cost of living requirements.
None of this is to say I'm opposed to the RIGHT of workers to try to create a union, just as I'm not opposed to the right of a business to fight unions. At this point, I'm talking about my personal preferences, and personally speaking, I hope Walmart ****s any proposed union so hard that it can't walk straight for a week.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Essentially. I don't oppose unions, per se - what I oppose are government protections for unions. If workers want to unionize, fine. And if businesses want to fire them because of that, that should be fine as well.
Now, personally speaking, I do oppose unions. I believe that they are counter-productive towards things such as a work ethic and personal responsibility. If one can just go crying to the union over some perceived slight, and the union backs the worker up 100% every time, that really isn't productive. If a union can force a business to pay workers far out of proportion to their actual worth, that is also counterproductive - although this objection is easily fixed by simply making sure that businesses are allowed to fire workers for ANY reason (including union participation).
And, as has been pointed out, unions have been notoriously corrupt.
But yes, as a Libertarian, I support the right of workers to unionize - just as strongly as I support the right of employers to fire their asses for being demanding little shits. |
Are you honestly that naive? Have you ever done a job where you have a ruthless employer where the harder you work the more they take off you, and no matter how well you do the job and how hard you work they keep taking and taking with nothing in return other than "if you don't like it, find another job". When people have responsibilities such as families or mortgages, they simply cannot walk out on a job. I have all the work ethic and personal responsibility you could ask for, but it means **** when you are being milked for all you are worth...join the real world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
But yes, as a Libertarian, I support the right of workers to unionize - just as strongly as I support the right of employers to fire their asses for being demanding little shits. |
Absolutely.
Next thing you'll know they'll be 'demanding' rest breaks, adequate ventilation, working days amounting to fewer than 14 hours in total, health and safety reviews....
Back to the Victorian future with David Floyd-
" Work, Health, Housing and Working People in the City of Manchester
THE WORKING PEOPLE OF MANCHESTER
Despite the growing wealth due to trade and commerce, prosperity lay in the hands of very few of Manchester's residents. The working people, who actually produced the wealth, lived, worked and died in conditions of the most desperate poverty and degradation. Innumerable reports and surveys were carried out during the 19th century, and they all told much the same story : poor wages, impossibly long working hours, dangerous and unsanitary working conditions, even more unsanitary dwellings, little or no health provisions, high infant mortality and a short life expectancy. A map of Manchester showing age of death figures in the mid-nineteenth century revealed that life expectancy was directly related to wealth. Put simply, the poor died younger and the rich lived longer. At that time, Ancoats was the death black spot of Manchester.
Records show that by 1830 there were over 560 cotton mills in Lancashire, employing more than 110,000 workers, of which 35,000 were children - some as young as six years of age. Wages for children were about 2s.3d. (two shillings and three pence) per week (about 11½ new pence), but adults were paid about 10 times more. Hence, it made economic sense to employ as many children and as few adults as possible, and this is exactly what happened. Youngest children were employed to crawl beneath machinery (while still in operation) to gather up loose cotton - they were known as "scavengers" and many died by getting caught up in machinery. Those that survived to adulthood had permanent stoops or were crippled from the prolonged crouching that the job entailed. The typical working day was 14 hours long, but many were much longer, as, without regulation, unscrupulous mill owners could demand any terms they liked.
MANCHESTER - VICTORIAN ATTITUDES
Any attention that the plight of working people drew from a wider middle class public was generally disparaging and attitudes tended to be laisser faire. The poor were regarded as an underclass, whose degradation was largely their own fault; frequently it was stated that God wished them to be poor; they were a semi-class of probable criminal tendencies.
Victorians distinguished between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. Widows, orphans, old people and those whose sickness rendered them incapable of work were regarded as deserving and could receive help through the system of Poor Houses, degrading though these were. The other poor or unemployed were regarded as undeserving and, without any social support system in place, were left entirely to their own devices.
Acquired wealth, on the other hand, was commonly seen as a visible sign of virtue: the poor were bad, the rich were good - it was a natural order."
http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/hi...Victorian1.html
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2004 08:40
|