Published: Friday, April 25 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Busting unions has proved to increase the well being of American workers so well
for the last four decades, let's do some more. Unions power peaked in 1970
and has been declining ever since. Wages for working class men peaked in 1973
and have been declining ever since. Doesn't anyone else see a
correlation?On another point, does this guy write the same
anti-union, anti-worker column over and over again, or do some of the words get
FYI, the writer of this "editorial" is a lobbyist who, according to
Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, represents large special
interest groups and; "advocates against labor unions;
public-health advocates; and consumer, safety, animal welfare, and environmental
groups".We should get all sides an issue, but is this the sort
of "source" we want to get it from?
Surprise, surprise! The Deseret News runs a piece by a noted union buster. For
a different point of view please see my responses to "Ends and means: Do we
serve the economy, or does it serve us?" in this same issue of the News.I wish Senator Hatch were interested in protecting employees from their
"This provision requires union officials to receive express written consent
from individual members before spending their dues on political
activities."I can wholeheartedly support this logic. But only
if it ALSO applies to corporations.Wouldn't the same logic and
rationale apply to corporations?Would Mr Hatch also want Corporate
Leadership to "receive express written consent from" stockholders (you
know, the people who actually own the corporation) before spending corporate
money on political activities?Why is this any different.Given both a Union AND a Corporate requirement, I think this is a great idea.
Watch the liberals line up to protect their money source. They must love the
current system, where they force conservatives to pay for democrat campaigns.Unions are supposed to work for the laborers. The laborers should have a
voice in what the unions do with the dues. Labor unions today abuse
the laborer to accomplish their own agenda, and many laborers are waking up to
this fact. It is time for some changes.
You can be sure if Mitt Romney won the election that he would not be saying a
word on the issue. America is so fortunate we have a President who actively
encourages public debate on issues like this. Goverment can't affectively
legislate the problem but it can expose it, encourage debate and discuss the
issue with business leaders.
BadgerCorporations are supposed to work for their shareholders. As
a shareholder, I do not receive all the profits from the corporations into which
I invest in a fair and equitable manner. Much of the profit from the business
is channeled into executive overpayments, executive benefits, lobbying and
frivolous expense. Much of the profit is withheld from me, and sits in off
shore accounts. Corporate America is not held accountable for its misdeeds. No
one in corporate America is ever penalized for mis/malfeasances.So
corporate American does not work for me. It works to serve a very few already
wealthy individuals with an outsized voice in what happens in the country. I
don't think that your vituperative reaction to working Americans is in any
way analogous to what corporate America does to its shareholders and the public
Roland,Who says the bill is about busting the unions?Liberal
Larry, Marxist,So rather than attack the content of what he said, you
attack the author. Are you unable to argue with any of the statistics he cited
or any of his reasoning?JoeBlow,If it applies to corporations?
You ask why it is different.Stockholders give their consent
to the actions of the board and management by their decisions to sell or retain
the stock and by their votes in the annual shareholder meetings. Shareholders
are not FORCED to pay into the corporation as union members are FORCED to pay
dues. THAT is why it is different. Glad I could explain it for you.FT, Lucky to have a POTUS who encourages public debate – why did
he wait until his 6th year if it was so important? He’s only doing it now
because his party has such a poor record on which to run he needs to divert
attention from it.
No-one is forced to invest in a Corporation or buy its products. However, in
many states (not Utah} you are forced to join a union if you want to work. Big
Lost in DC and KDave.Good points. Stockholders and consumers are
free to sell their stock or not buy a companies product based on their political
donations and lobby efforts of the corporation.Except that there is
no requirement for Corporations to publicly disclose these political activities,
therefore leaving investors unaware.Do you support mandatory
disclosure of corporate political activity?
Ad hominem arguments are when someone's argument is discredited on the
basis of an irrelevant fact pertaining to the author making a claim. The fact
that someone is a lobbyist is hardly irrelevant. I just want people
to realize that the author is paid to represent corporate interests.He may be correct in his presentation, but his he is hardly an
"objective" source of information.
No one is forced to be a union member. If you do not like that your union
supports democrats then quit your job and go work non union. On the
other hand I can not understand why union members would vote republican.
Republicans hate the idea of some regular guy making a decent living. I
understand there are social issues republicans represent that union members may
agree with, but you can not feed your family on social issues.
When businessmen make the rules for employees and their unions, we are
guaranteed to have two losers, the employees and their unions. The
real problem with our economic system is the growing imbalance in the sharing of
wealth produced by the people of our society. Traditionally labor was required
to create most of the wealth and thus the people had a way to participate in the
sharing of the overall benefits of our society. Such is not the case now,
technology, and foreign labor have starved the need for the American worker.
We need jobs and the only entity that could provide those jobs and
the proper pay is the government of the USA. We need for the government to hire
every unemployed worker at a salary that fits the employees need and
qualification. This would not be welfare but real jobs that are needed by the
people of America. Private business will not voluntarily give us full
employment. Businessmen cannot be bribed or forced to do the needed action,
competition from the government can.
Ultra Bob,I hate to break it to you but the government of the USA cannot
and should not provide full employment at "proper pay," especially when
people are accustomed to sitting at home and collecting a check for processing
oxygen. Government produces nothing; it is a parasite that can only rob from the
means of production to redirect it elsewhere, typically in an inefficient and
wasteful, and generally directed to "friends and family." The founders
of our Republic recognized this governmental tendency and laid the groundwork
for keeping it in check. Unfortunately, our short-sightedness and lackadaisical
voting has kept people in power who succumb to this tantalizing greed for living
high off the public largesse.Your reading of history doesn't jibe
with the facts. Wealth always has and always will be created by those willing to
take risks and invest labor AND capital with uncertain prospects of outcomes.
Solyndra, Homeland Security, and the USPS are poster children for how poorly the
government runs businesses.
@kiddsport. The attitude that the government is a parasite is the problem with
this country today. To say government does not have a proper and productive role
in society is shortsighted.
The real problem with jobs is that there aren't enough of them to go
around. This is likely caused by uncertainty created by an administration that
is opposed to traditional management of economic problems. Creating more
government and more government jobs has never been the solution. Getting
government and more rules and regulations out of the way seems to stimulate
economic activity - creating more job opportunities. Regulating unions
doesn't fix the problems. In a free market, unions will need to meet the
needs and desires of their members, or the members will go away.More
government is akin to more unionization - it is about control and power of the
few over the many.
IMO... Legislating our thoughts and actions rarely works. It's better to
hope good people will do good things for the right reasons (not just because
they are required to by law).And realize that there will always be
BAD people out there... and just don't work for them (and the will not have
the best workers and go out of business).====Or... Have
more women starting their own companies. And running their own companies.
Then IF they pay women less than men... they only have themselves to blame (not
the evil men).====I mean we already have unions....
right?Are they not supposed to represent women workers too? And
insure that there's not inequality? Have they just been letting it happen?
Or contributing to it?Maybe we need Women's unions and
Men's Unions... as the normal unions don't seem to be representing
JoeBlow,Mandatory disclosure of corporate political activity on its face
does not sound like a bad idea – but then you have the hate groups that
boycott chik-fil-a or force the resignation of a CEO or sue business owners
because they do not agree with your point of view.Liberal Larry,Thanks for admitting what he said was factual, even if you do not like his
employmentShaun,Yes, people ARE forced to be union members.
Many states are “closed-shop” states, meaning by law if there is a
union, you MUST belong and you MUST pay dues. Union members vote republican
because republicans believe in the opportunity to get ahead, and that you should
be able to keep what you earn rather than have it flushed away on failing
government programs.Yes, government does have a proper and
productive role in society; too bad it has gone far beyond that proper and
Ultra Bob: I've always wanted to make Egyptian pottery at $100,000 a year!
I'm sure all those undertaxed workers will be more than happy to give that
to me! Let's just nationalize all businesses, guarantee everyone the same
wage, and add a big screen tv in every home and free contraception! That will
make America great again!
I've read this a dozen times now and, frankly, I just can't make the
connection the Employee Right's Act and fixing workplace inequality? I get
it that the author does not have a very high regard for unions but he fails
miserably at showing how the ERA will do anything to address workplace
inequality. A question to Lost in DC: what "hate groups"
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments