Why Unions must be broken
View Single Post
09-16-2004, 02:39 PM
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Originally Posted by
Something has to protect the workers from the owners...either that takes the form of Unions or the government (which in our case is supposedly a UNION (for the people))
Unions though become too powerful and can choke a company out of competition (ie Airlines).
I don't know the answer, but both sides have pluses and minuses.
i think i like the idea of arbitration...
Unions are necessary to resolve temporary imbalances between management and labor, but they are only effective if the workers are in some way truly 'irreplacable.' In the case of factory workers (UAW members) spot-welders are not terribly hard to replace, for example. Even a highly-specialized group like Air-Traffic Controllers couldn't stand together when they were opened up to the market. Unions in the U.S. derive what power they have from their place as government-chartered entities. A union is needed for the sole purpose of making management stand up and respect the workers at a particular moment in time. The longer a labor struggle goes on the more 'replacable' the workers become.
Also, try to remember that it is ownership/management of a company that has undertaken the extreme risk of captial and time to put said company together. The workers ultimately assume very little risk in that regard. Their risk is only taken AFTER they've taken the job offered to them, not before.
Generally though, remember that the first rule of ANY organization is not to fufill the mandate for which it was created, it is to continue existing, and that's exactly what most protectionist rhetoric is about. Sometimes, in the case of a business, the organization's mandate is it's mechanism for survival, namely private enterprise, who survive only by providing a good/service that people are actually willing to buy.
Governments and, indirectly, their subsidiaries (Unions, Corporations, Public/Private Partnerships, Political Parties, etc.) gain their funding through the enforcement of laws and have no direct responsibility to their 'clients.'
7NA is absolutely correct in that the Union needs to be removed from this situation. And, frankly, if we don't have hockey for a year to get rid of the NHLPA (and I never have to hear Bob Goodenow speak ever again) then so be it. I have no idea if a salary cap will be good for the game or not. I know the union is not, though, because it is interested first and foremost in it's survival not the League's. I think it's safe to say that the League is interested in it's survival, though. As a fan which organization would you back?
I know my answer.
View Public Profile
Visit joechip's homepage!
Find More Posts by joechip