Showing posts with label unions are for losers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions are for losers. Show all posts

Monday, August 06, 2007

Shambling to a Blog Near You



Susie Madrak needs help. She's a blogger. Now keep in mind that blogging requires a chair and at least one finger. The rigors of blogging are akin to the rigors of sun bathing. And yet to Susie this is "very intense - physically and mentally." If you ever needed a window into the union mentality, there it is. That which appears to be easy is actually very hard and, in fact, too hard for any one person to do. It takes a village to have a hobby.

Collectivism is the Cult of Incompetence. It is founded on one principle - You Can't. It is absurd.


Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Look for the Union Label.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Good For Something?

The Republicans have done precious little to improve our great republic over the past 6 years. But credit must be given where credit is due. The senate shot down the Pathetic Pandering to Big Labor Bill that this blog whined about several months ago (I'd put in a fancy link to it, but I don't know how...find the post somewhere below...show a little initiative). The bill would end the requirement that secret ballots be used when voting to unionize. That's right. Not allowing workers to vote in secret about forming a union BENEFITS workers. If you understand how this could possibly be true please notify this blog immediately. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen more obvious pandering in my long and storied life. And what makes it more than just run of the mill offensive is that it claims to protect the very group that it is shafting. It also shows how little unions really care about workers. Unions care about unions. And democrats care about union money. And workers are just patsies to both. I'm begging a union supporter to set me straight. Show me this isn't as Orwellian is it appears. And show me why all elections from now on should be held by having voters wear a t-shirt supporting their candidate in a group photo taken by the Jimmy Carter.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

The Union's weird move in Denver

The AFL-CIO has issued a public challenge to both Colorado and the DNC, and if it doesn't get it's way, it says it will "strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the convention." As you can imagine this news sent Colorado democrats scurrying to make the union happy.

Real quick hullabaloo background here.

Anyway, the Denver Post's update outlines Colorado Democrat's rapid response to union Demands. Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, the man who vetoed the bill the AFL-CIO's all panty bundled about, is in full panic mode. Say's his spokesman, "The governor understands that the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations are upset. He welcomes the dialogue." While, CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver) said he would rather spend the rest of the session "focusing on issues of common ground, like education and health care." The way they're bowing to union pressure is just embarrassing.

Which begs the question, "What exactly is the union doing?" I've been sitting on this post trying to figure out the union's goal. Having a public fit makes no sense. There's no way, zero, that the Dems can bow to the union after this public calling out, as doing do would kill them in 2008. Not only that, but the Dems best chance for victory lies in making inroads int he west. Bowing to union pressure and reneging on the decision to have the convention in Denver would set them back years, if not decades. Not only that, but the Dems are poised to retake the White House, why rock the boat now? As for the Dems, their only hope to avoid directly letting the union down is for CO to capitulate, which just isn't going to happen.
This isn't Michigan, it's not like there's a huge union base in CO that will rally around the call. Not only that, but a Democratic Governor vetoed the bill. Plus, people in the west just don't like other people telling them what to do, know your audience. Maybe they wanted to create media around the veto of the bill, but one, CO's moved on and didn't really care the first time around. Two, by putting itself in the position of inevitable failure, the AFL-CIO, already struggling, looks weaker and comes off even worse. The union's best chance on all this was to work behind the scenes, maybe get some kind of concession about using union labor on the convention, or some kind of assurance that the bill will be re-introduced so that the union can put together another, better, campaign to get it passed. But now that this is public, everyone is forced to dig in their heels. The DNC and CO have the hand here, and they'll use it. The union is the weak link, and they'll be broken (good thing there's no union prohibition against mixed metaphors).

But this "public pressure" tactic reflects the union's longing for yesteryear, when they could dictate policy. In order to survive, the union's must accept that they just aren't the player they used to be, work the margins, get subtle, get better at "behind the scenes" negotiations, and make themselves powerful by aiding, not threatening Democratic initiatives. They did a great job getting rid of private ballots, and had the chance to build on that. Instead, they fell back into their hamfisted ways with CO and are getting publicly spanked.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Look for the Union Label...And then Avoid It

I'll spare you all my predictable rant describing why unions reduce quality of outputs and create elitist institutions that foster exclusion. I'd rather ask any collectivists out there a more fundamental question. Why would government workers ever need to unionize? The argument for the necessity of unions (at least, the only one that ever made any kind of sense to me) is that they protect the individual from the harsh bottom line thinking of the capitalist profit motive. But the government does not operate with a profit motive. Therefore, it has no incentive to reduce costs and "underpay" employees. In fact, the government looks for political support from its employees and, therefore has an incentive to overpay...which it usually does. In the realm of governmental employment a union serves as just another layer of bureaucracy that adds additional expense (by siphoning of dues) and adds no value.

Good for the GOP (for once) in keeping unions out of the anti-terror bill. The American people would be far better served if unions were kept out of all governmental employment.