.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meet Phread Andropopogeopanatakis (pronounced John Smith).
Phread wants a job. Phread can work. Phread is willing to work (more important). Phread finds a job and is a perfect fit. Phread gets hired and likes the job, does well, etc etc etc.
Copacetic.
Come payday, Phread collects his paycheck.
As he leaves the payroll counter, a human gorilla in a monkey suit with a suspicious bulge under the arm stands with a hand out.
"Gimme $20. Gonna cost you $20 a week to work here," Magilla says.
Magilla shoves the money in his pocket. Magilla is not connect in any way with any government agency. The double sawbuck Phread just handed over is not going into any government coffer. It's going into the hands of private people.
The payout has nothing to do with how well Phread does his job. The money does not pay for him to have job training and continuing education. The payout, in fact is not necessary to Phread being able to do the job. In fact, the vast majority people around the nation who do the exact same job Phread does, do not pay this money to Grape Ape and his associates.
What should Phread do? If he complains, he gets fired. If he complains about that, he's told this is entirely legal.
What would you do?
What would you do if someone came to you every payday and demanded part of your paycheck for the privilege of working there. See above stipulations on the money and your recourse.
Lemme ask a slightly different question: A person willing to work, can work, wants to work and finds a job. Are they entitled to keep all the money they earn from the job? Disregard taxes, insurance and other voluntary contributions for this discussion. This is an involuntary contribution.
Should they be forced to pay for something they don't want? Should they have to pay for the privilege of working?
Some people think so.
Cut this down to the bare facts. Trim the excess, carve away the fat and get rid of the superfluity.
This next question is really going to make some people mad.
Under the circumstances described in the link above and my information, what is the real difference, then, between a gangster offering "protection" and a union offering "representation?"
I can't find much. As I see it, they are both a couple of thugs, one just has, for the moment, legal protection. A thug with the protection of law is a thug. Fortunately, Michigan is getting ready to remove this legal protection and let hard working people keep their money or join a union of their own volition.
If unions are actually doing the good work they claim, then they should be able to get people to join willingly. Forcing people to join is thuggery, no matter how prettily you describe it.
Sounds like taxes. I don't want to pay them, but I have to, or I can't work. (And, I'll go to jail.)
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should never have a situation where you HAVE to pay the union to work. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need unions, because employers would voluntarily support quality of life decisions , or at least take them into consideration as a reasonable cost of operating. However, without the strong arm of collective bargaining, many employers would not. However, having said that, I completely agree with you - it is wrong to require union membership. The second problem is that when it is voluntary, everyone will expect others to pay the bill, while still expecting to reap the benefits - thats why, in my opinion, voluntary union membership won't work.
And regardless, what you are seeing of unions is a last ditch battle. Unions are dying - no amount of democratic politicians can save them.
We need a new solution! We need to find a new way for compassion and connection to win out over greed. I think we are finding that forcing compassion isn't working.
I am okay with unions, even though I feel that they have become something mafia like in many cases. What i am against, very very against is exactly what my brother's blog is about. No one should HAVE to be a member of a union and no one should HAVE to pay dues to work somewhere. If you want to be a member of a union, fine. If you don't, also fine. These mobs posing as unions are ridiculous. I am reminded of an incident awhile back where a company in New York decided to hire a Union besides the Longshoremen because they felt the wages demanded by them was way to high. The Longshoremen proceeded to break into the Company's property, sabotage their equipment causing 10s of 1000s of dollars worth of damage. They called this "protesting."
ReplyDelete