"Necessitous men are not free men."

[Union Thug]

And that's the bottom line. At the core of 'freedom' is economic access. Without that, freedom is a pipe dream.

Anyone who opposes unions, minimum wage, public education, etc, also opposes freedom.

[razors edge]

1. I don't oppose unions but

isn't opposing the right of an employer to find a cheaper way to get the job done removing his freedom in that aspect?

[PassingFair]

2. So......

minimum wage laws restrict FREEDOM?

Child labor laws restrict FREEDOM?

[razors edge]

6. Yes, in a way they do.

I said I don't oppose unions, so you can probly discern I don'tbelive in the Tom Delay method of free trade. (Marianas)

We do not and have not had anything resembling freedom (trademark, inc USA) for a long time and I don't belive we will see it again here in our lifetimes.

Freedom isn't free the freeps say, well I say freedom isn't pretty. It consists of many things we all concider to be unaceptable, like putting your kids in a car without a child seat, like the ability to hunt, fish, drive, and a hundred other things without government regulation. And that ain't coming round here anytime soon.

So lets all agree to stop using the damn word like it's something we care for and support, We can't handle freedom.

[PassingFair]

10. I hope you can afford private police

to protect your "factory" or whatever sweatshop you intend
on running when the people come with their bats and torches.

Public funds won't be used to protect you.

Freedom isn't free.

Or whatever....

Those Po'leese mens gonna make more than 50 cents an hour.

[razors edge]

14. Get real,

I never said I wanted to change any laws to promote sweat shops or child labor, if anything I would say the problem is we haven't enforced the laws on them to begin with.

The police no longer protect and serve, they were taken to court and sued for not going into situations where their lives may be endangered, they were overheard on the radios talking about how they were not going in till the gun fire stopped, and the courts said they did not have to place their lives on the line for the public. But they did get rid of public accessible radio communications, too embarrassing I guess.

I am a teamster supporter in the largest local in America, I will be attending my fourth contract negotiation in the next month or so and our teamsters make $18.75/hr, whats in your wallet?

[Union Thug]

36. The whole point of my original post is that freedom has no

meaning without equal access to the economy.

The rich can get around any of those regulations. I can't.

The point - money does indeed buy freedom. If I have money, I can do any goddamned thing I want, any goddamned time I want to do it. Working a job that pays a shitty wage removes me from the process in multiple ways - I can't buy influence, I don't have time or resources to work to change things to any realistic degree. I can't control messages/propaganda broadcast to the masses on a daily basis. Basically, working people get what the privileged decide they get -

- unless they organize and act as a collective force to take that access from the privileged. \

[razors edge]

47. There a thousand hacking at the branches of evil

to the one who will strike the root.

Henry David Thorough


We all would like to change the world but just how far would we go if given that power. A doubling of our wages would buy more game boys but would we demand and pay for the things that would actually change the problems, with any success, or would we just pay more for the same results, since all would now have more money to fund the changes, the politicians on both sides would naturally double the price of said access as well as the news outlets and every supplier of goods and services along the way. Before you attack me as a supporter of the class system as it stands address how I am wrong about this.

Yes the rich can afford to pay more for the labor and still would have a major advantage to control the laws and politics of the country. I would go to some extremes that might not be acceptable to some but would make a difference.

no standing army, kiss those defense jobs goodbye.

no federal reserve, economic collapse on the level of the USSR who is now completely out of debt.

no foreign aid, to anyone while americans go to bed in cardboard boxes and the government is in debt.

no troops in foreign countries, what real service do they provide and to whom, those recipients should hire and pay for their own protection.

[Unvanguard]

41. Yes, we can.

The flaw in your argument is that you equate freedom with the "freedom" to deprive others of freedom; that is not freedom at all, rather its opposite, tyranny.

Genuine freedom is not the freedom to rule but rather the freedom not to be ruled, and to have the opportunities necessary for a life in accordance with one's preferences.

[GeorgeGist]

50. Your free to be...

a cheapskate.

[atreides1]

3. The needs of the many

Outweigh the needs of a few.

[razors edge]

7. Five men need a blow job,

one woman needs not to give a blow job. How does you statement pertain to gang rape?

[PassingFair]

12. WTF? n/t

[razors edge]

16. sorry should have

included the verbage I was responding to.
\
3. The needs of the many Outweigh the needs of a few.

[mondo joe]

17. I think you could find a better source of philosophy than a Star Trek

movie.

It's also too simplistic.

[Union Thug]

26. So, what is your issue with this statement?

If the needs of the people are not being met, then the system is not functioning and needs to be changed. Whether or not you consider it a simple concept is totally irrelevant.

[mondo joe]

53. The needs of the many, the needs of the few.

Slavery of the minority.

[rman]

54. Star Trek is not the source, it's much older than Star Trek

Besides, a philosophy should be taken on its own merit.

[sweetheart]

4. not many think like employers here

"stick it to big business"
"tax the rich"
"tax big business"

Yet all along, the rich are as likely to vote democratic as republican... or the
incredible trials of difficulty a startup business encounters before it is able to
hire its 'first' employee.

Indeed it does feel right when theyr'e talking about chevron and detroit, but when
its come to a 4 person startup, the union/managment line is not drawn, nor should
it be.

[Cleita]

8. That thinking is so nineteenth century.

Read some Charles Dickens and catch up. When corporations keep the workforce divided by not allowing them to bargain collectively, they don't practice the free market crap that they preach about.

[annabanana]

9. hear hear!. . . . . n/t

[razors edge]

19. Nor do the unions

practice the protection of employees they preach about. I have sat across the table from the union three times, soon to be four, and each time the junior members have asked for more money now, only to be sold out at the table for a better retirement plan by the senior men they sent to negotiate for them. A retirement plan that will only benefit the senior man during that contract as well.

[Cleita]

21. There is corruption at times as there is in any system, but

the presence of unions is far better than none. Even with the corruption evident with Jimmy Hoffa in the fifties, the workers were never better off than after he was gotten rid of. It's just history. Bone up.

[razors edge]

29. I never said otherwise, Bone Up Yourself.

[Unvanguard]

11. The freedom to rule is not a freedom at all.

It does not expand freedom to permit someone the "freedom" to deny another freedom.

[Union Thug]

20. It's a democratic society. Unions are the only

democratic force at work in the workplace. If an employer doesn't contribute to the community by providing for the needs of that community in the form of fair wages, then they obviously have no functional place in the community.

[razors edge]

24. Do you consider $19/hr

and millions in upgrades annually contributing to the society? We start non-union at $12/hr, a dollar more than I started at as management 12 years ago. We supply the bulk of road surfacing materials in NW Ohio, so i guess all the fast food joints gotta go.

[Cleita]

34. The only reason that non-union jobs get good wages is

because the union makes them compete. I had a friend who worked for a family owned grocery store. She got a little better than union wages because the owners wanted to keep the unions out. She screwed up the cash register one day and was fired. If she had been union she would have had a union rep to argue with management about why she was fired.

[razors edge]

39. My seven teamster positions

have been teamster since 1962, and if the company wanted to they could have done away with the union many years ago. There is no pressure to keep these jobs union, nor any shortage of applicants to replace them at a greatly reduced rate.

Sometimes it just protects the company as well as the union, since we have no responsibility for the teamsters retirement nor insurance, if they get f**ked over it isn't something to come back on our small company.

Ohio is an at will state and have I gone to the joint area committee to dismiss employees, while it does provide protection against stupid shit like retribution, or firing for a simple mistake, I still had no problem removing any employee who needed it.

[Union Thug]

42. And it goes beyond wages..

It speaks to economic stability, the ability to weather hardships, afford lifelong education, and provide for a comfortable retirement. Wages are only a part of the equation. I've had union jobs where my wages were pretty equal to others without unions, but what made the difference was in my insurance, dental and pension plans.

Further, as you point out, it means that we have very basic rights to representation in the tyranny of the workplace. Again, if employers don't contribute to the community to the same degree that they expect their employees to perform on the job, then let them go to Iraq or some place where the economic libertarians are building their great Utopias. They'll fit right in.

[Unvanguard]

43. Not only that

but also the liberty and dignity of having meaningful control over the conditions under which one spends a large portion of one's life.

[Union Thug]

45. spot on. well said. n/t

[struggle4progress]

49. Would you consider it an infringement of a factory owner's freedom ..

.. to forbid the owner from taking over a town with machine-gun armed troops, reducing the inhabitants to slavery, and forcing them to work in the factory for two scanty meals a day, an unheated hovel, and rag clothing?

[razors edge]

56. If it is good enough for the president

to be given that power by executive order then do you feel we should not have the same?

[Skidmore]

51. By this logic, an employer would be given the freedom to

ultimately enslave people.

[razors edge]

57. How so?

does this logic as you call it provide legal protection for an employer to kidnap, hold against will, or prevent a worker from pursuing a different life away from said employer?

[lonestarnot]

60. And exploiting American workers with your proposition of

cheap ass labor expense doesn't? hmmmf.

[rman]

63. Corporations not free to use slave labor

(which is the cheapest way to get the job done)

Key here is the notion that any freedom is in fact limited: no-one is free to infringe on other people's freedom and rights. But contrary to what you imply, those limitations do not mean that freedom as such is "removed".
Your right to life means i don't have the right to kill you. And vice-versa. Got a problem with that?

[Cleita]

5. Delete

[Poppyseedman]

13. Unions at their core principles oppose individual freedom

Union represent members. Union by definition are a collective. Collectives are not made up of free men except free to leave them when your skills and abilities can get you a better income

My conflict with your statement is not with the concept of unions, but to define whether or a man is free depending on his union membership is diametrically opposed to the concept of freedom.

You give up your rights to represent yourself in your employment by joining a union.

To agree with your statement is to say the 83 % of non union members who work in this country as being opposed to freedom.

That simply isn't true.

[Cleita]

15. I disagree with you on this statement.

You give up your rights to represent yourself in your employment by joining a union.

Most of us in the cubicle or factory assembly line work never had that right to go in and talk to the boss, one on one, to bargain for better working conditions and wages. Collectively we have a chance.

If you feel that you can bluster your way into the bosses office and make demands for yourself, then obviously you are not the typical person who needs a union.

I can tell you though that I made more money in a union job than many of my management supervisors, who had to work on salary and didn't get the overtimes and other benefits that we got.

Imagine if there was a union for supervisors and middle management?

[razors edge]

18. I am that

of which you speak, I am the lowest level management (except my one asst.) in my company and I have been salary all my life including the marines.

You are correct about a large corporation's lower employees not having access to upper management and the union can help with that.

My seven teamsters not only have collective rights but will be heard by the president of the company himself if a problem cannot be settled at a lower level. I work for a very good company and my bosses know I will support my men just like a ground officer in combat supports his.

There are many scenarios that exist in the company/union thing, I think mine is rare unfortunately.

[Cleita]

27. One of these days, I must tell DU the story of my father, who

pulled himself up by the bootstraps, Republican style. He never asked anyone for special treatment. He found a company he dedicated his life to as a worker and a manager, for at first good money, really good money.

The company at first really took good care of him. After awhile, younger guys with a better education started getting the better jobs and the better money. At the end of 44 years he got a gold watch that I still have, and a pension with diminishing returns as he got older and no health benefits. The company got sold and that was the end of the daddy corporation he had come to rely on and pension benefits that he was supposed to get. He still got what he had been getting but nothing more and nothing promised with no recourse.

You can imagine how pissed he was with me when I became a union person. Before he died he told me I was right.

[razors edge]

35. My dad worked 42 years

as a manager for ACF and now lives on the retirement he provided for himself by investing his money along the way and not relying on the company to care for him after he left like they had implied they would.

The union members that thought they had negotiated for themselves a retirement package with health care got the same shaft he was smart enough to prepare against.

Companies Sue Union Retirees
To Cut Promised Health Benefits

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/SB110003711129469246.htm

In the past two years, employers have sued union retirees across the country. In the suits, they ask judges to rule that no matter what labor contracts say, they have a right to change the benefits. Some companies also argue that contract references to "lifetime" coverage don't mean the lifetime of the retirees, but the life of the labor contract. Since the contracts expired many years ago, the promises, they say, have expired too.

[Cleita]

37. It seems to be the Republican way.

Screw the useless lifetime employee. Actually, why not take out these useless, dried up old employees and shoot them?

The unions have been made impotent by the Taft-Hartley act and we need to change that. What workers don't realize is that the rich corporations are useless without them.

[razors edge]

40. I wish the assholes would honor their

agreements as well, I just helped work out my folks will and needless to say it would have been better for us kids had the retirement not been screwed over, but it is happening to both union and non-union.

[Union Thug]

23. The point is that unions have traditionally used democratic

methods to ensure equal access to the economy. If an employer refuses to provide for the needs of its workers, it is parasitic and has no place in the community. The key is access to the economy. Labor organizing has been instrumental in forcing the owners to provide a living income. We've seen a world without organized labor and it left a huge number of people slaving for table scraps.

So, who the fuck cares about freedom of religion, for example, if you can't pay your rent? Freedom has no meaning without equal access to the economy.

[Cleita]

31. What you say!

:thumbsup:

[rman]

55. "Collectives are not made up of free men"

What is the basis of that assertion of yours?

The OP does not define whether or a man is free depending on his union membership, but rather depending on him/her being "necessitous".

A properly functioning Union can help prevent 'men' from becoming necessitous and thus help them to remain (or become) free.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Don't Agree With The Opposing Union Meme As A Whole.

'Unions' are not a one for all concept. Each company's union has different contracts and different needs that warrant their existence. Not all Unions are equal. Some are absolutely mandatory in order to protect workers and their rights, but others are shams that impede productivity. Really depends on the company and the type of Union. So because of that, it can't really be an all or nothing declaration. There are many Unions I support, but there are some that I don't. One very close to me that I don't support is the one at my own place of employment. Part of the company is non-union, part of it is union. The company treats us very very well, but many of the union members take advantage of every possible loophole they can and our productivity suffers daily because of it. Small parts of what I've been doing lately is creating reports that quantify and capture their productivity far more precisely, so that we can start having better documentation of certain people's poor performance. So according to your meme, because I'm against that union I would technically be opposing freedom, since the declaration seems to be of an all or nothing stance. I don't think it's that simple though. Some Unions are vital, others are not. I support the ones that are necessary, legitimate or respectful.

[Cleita]

30. This is why you need to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act of 1948.

You can't have effective unions in an open shop. It invites those guys in who pretend to be unions but really are only looking for dues as an income. A closed union (other than discriminatory, racist and sexist practices)gives everyone solidarity.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Not Sure What You Mean By Open Shop. It's A Local Teamsters Union.

Their local leadership was taken down a few years ago for corruption and stealing etc though, and replaced with new ones. Just don't know what an open shop is. Our office part is non-union, our production part is all union, except for the supervisors of course.

[Cleita]

33. Open shop means you have union members and non-union

members. It doesn't work. I have worked open shop and the non-union members decide to be non-union because they don't want to pay dues or belong to a club. They will get the same wages as what is bargained for by the union workers. They can be persuaded by management to scab during a strike. Although, I have noted when the strike is over, they are the first to be laid off. There is no one to protect them. So the managers will lay off the non-union workers.

[Union Thug]

38. Open shops are a farce. They do nothing but provide

leverage power to the employing class.

Collectively, through democratic processes, the majority must be able to decide how businesses are going to conduct themselves in our communities. If the business class doesn't like it, get the fuck out our country and go to Iraq. I hear they are setting up a real libertarian paradise there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Nah. Not Like That. Our Corporate Side Is Non-Union, The Shop Floor Is

fully union. Pay scales are completely unrelated, as is everything else. It's a 'company within a company' so to speak. There is no choice whether one is union or not. If you are not a production member, you aren't union. If you are a production member, you are union. Only exception is supervisors.

We were all ready to fill in for the union spots last contract though, as there was risk of a strike. Some of us helped train others in preparation and we were pretty ready to go on with business, but at the last minute the strike didn't occur. Not too long before that contract is up though. Not sure what will happen next time.

[Cleita]

46. Let us know. I have been out of the job market

for some time. I think future workers need to know.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Future Workers Need To Know What?

Sorry, I didn't understand what you were talking about there.

[Unvanguard]

25. Indeed.

The unrestrained rule of the employer is as much tyranny as any other form of unrestrained rule.

The freedom for the vast majority in every capitalist society rests on their capability to restrain that rule.

[razors edge]

58. freedom through the use of restraint.

you don't see the oxymoron here do you?

[Unvanguard]

59. No, I don't.

Because it's not an oxymoron at all.

A dictator has "freedom" - the freedom to rule over everyone else. Is that a free society?

I am in favor of maximizing freedom. Maximizing freedom means getting rid of rulers, but in the mean time, restraining them is a step in the right direction.

[rman]

64. Your freedom ends where mine begins

And my freedom ends where yours begins.
You seem to think that freedom is either unlimited, or it is not freedom at all.
Yet few people have a problem with the fact that they do not have the freedom to kill other people.

[upi402]

28. you go, Thug! k/r

:bounce: :toast: :patriot:

[malaise]

52. Have you read Ellen Meiksens Wood

on Democracy against Capitalism. She refutes all the bullshit and demonstrates that liberal democracy cedes rights to corporations since most of humanity have no freedom in the marketplace. No job is secure.

What's more the neo-cons are systematically removing limited 20th century reforms uncluding unions, minimum wage, public education, healthcare and so on. Cedng public space to the private sector will even deny people the right to wander.

It won't be long before people across the globe 'stand up for their rights'.

[Keepontruking]

61. Free Men

I disagree I live in a right to work state and I like it , why
should the union collect part of my wage.  The union is
exactly why the car factories have on the most part moved out
of e America...they paid HS drop outs 50,000-80,000 a year to 
stand in an assembly line and put a bolt on with full benefits
and a heck of retirement package all thanks to the unions!!! 
Yay for them.  That drove up all the wages in those states,
plus housing and goods, and hospital care and etc. Then the
Company got tired of the Union and left the country now those
men don't have jobs or retirements , most are on welfare, and
you can give away your house.  There are always two side to
the story.  I make a great wage as much as union states , I'm
treated well, and have no complaints, my husband feels the
same about his job....and job security ...that is a pipe dream
...that doesn't exist anywhere and your kidding yourself if
you think it does!!!!!!!!!!  One who has been both places and
hated unions!!!!!!!!  Circus Girl

Public Education would be nice if the money was there ask my
daughter she is a principal and she has horror
stories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[rman]

62. yup, no need for unions if you like low wages.

Otoh if wages are decent, there's no problem giving some of it to a union that helps keep wages decent.
The alternative is to leave the level of wages at the discretion of the institutions that have an interest in low wages, and to have any negotiations about wages take place between the corporation and individual workers.