To a certain class of thug, it's impossible to reject the appeal of violence. It's always easier to just put a gun to someone's head than it is to earn your money the honest way. Joe Nocera at the NYTimes can't remember it, but that's what unions are really all about.
More pay, less work - change nothing else. That's the point of a union. Of course, less work means higher prices and fewer sales (higher prices that union members still have to pay), but that doesn't matter to the union. "Let someone else pay" is what they say, as if those costs they impose are transformed away by magic. Even if the 'someone else' is them. When all they put in is force, all they get out is reduced efficiency. That's it.
Joe Nocera always forgets the other wonderful effects of unions. He forgets how they raise unemployment by keeping other qualified people out. This lowers the overall income of ALL workers. And while a non union worker who works harder better or smarter than his peers, will do better, a union member who tries something like that just gets a beating in the parking lot for making his 'brothers' look bad. More force.
The workers at PanAm were in a union. But since they drove that company out of business, I doubt they think much of the union now. Same with the union members at American Motors, and National Steel. The union isn't doing much for those workers. A union is a tapeworm - that's all. It provides no real benefit to anything but itself, and if it gets strong enough and large enough, it eventually just kills it's host.
Yes Joe, we need more of that. (What a remarkably stupid man.)
5 comments:
It takes a special type of delusion to posit that liberals and unions aren't hand in glove currently. (Also, let's not forget his "hometown" Providence is basically Detroit in New England, due mostly to rot brought on my union overreach and corruption). Nocera should've just sent this mash note to Noah privately to spare us the nausea.
Tom, I'm an avid reader. I understand your contempt for the modern union. I agree. As a NJ resident, I'm a proud supporter of Gov Christie's union reforms, as well as Scott Walker.
But the sole purpose of a union is "more work, less pay"? I find this to be as wrong-headed in the opposite direction as Joe Nocera. There is nothing wrong with unions in theory. The problem is current union rules.
Sorry, I meant to say "more pay, less work"
I think we knew what you meant Brian.
By all means, please explain to me how a union's goals are anything except "more pay, less work." I'm open to hear your argument. I get that you mean "In theory", but when has a union EVER worked that way? You can say that pigs can fly "In theory" and your theory may seem valid, but until I see at least one of them manage, I'm dubious.
Until otherwise persuaded I stand by my statement.
A trade union is a totally different animal than a public employee union. There was a time, when working conditions regularly broke the bodies of workers, that trade unions made economic sense. But this is history.
There never has been the same basis supporting the existence of a public sector union. As it stands, a public sector union can back a candidate, who if victorious takes a seat opposite the union at the bargaining table. The sole function of a public sector union by definition is more pay less work. I will never accept that their existence is justified.
Post a Comment