"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.


I guess you don't have too much faith in your abilities or you are just a poor
performer.

I have never had a problem negotiating pay increases based on my contributions. Most
hard workers who contribute to the bottom line do not have problems either. They
negotiate one on one based on their skills and contributions.

Unions lead to mediocrity. Why work hard or perform over and beyond? You will get the
same pay increase no matter what.


And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already.

So how have they improved the lives of the workers in the 21st century? And Chuck,
don't tell anyone but it is actually 2.5 years old.

Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999. If you see no difference, you will never see any benefit
that was provided by unions. The changes were not brought about by the
magnificent generosity of employers. Unions haven't
"held back" improved conditions that employers have been desperate to provide.

Continue living in the past Chuck. Not me though.

But if you want to, provide some facts on how the unions have improved the lives of
workers in the late 20th century, say from 1985 on.



Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers. The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

And the collective bargaining leads to lower productivity and mediocrity. If you need
it, fine. Most people with skills and talent don't need a group to bargain for them.


Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed. When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

Why should the companies with lousy working environments get by with paying as
little as companies with more progressive management?

What do the unions do with all those dues that members blindly pay every
week?


Run the union business office. Fund a union retirement plan for union workers.
Pay union death and disability benefits to the families of workers killed or
injured on the job. Lobby for pro-labor legislation, just as management lobbies
for anti-labor laws.
Any union member is free to ask for an accounting of union income and expense.

You forgot the part about padding their pockets. That is where most of the money goes.


Just a few of my questions. Take you time in answering them.

No time needed. Next time, try to think up some tough ones. :-)

Perhaps if you took your time you could have provided some better answers.