Followup on my last post

A couple of people responded to my last Blog post on Facebook where others had linked to the post.  I am going to respond here because, well, I can. If you haven’t read it, you should before reading this.

 

JB: First off, a union is a lot less powerful than a corporation, and has always stood on the side of people interests, not the interests of a made up organization that cannot actually experience suffering or punishments in any meaningful way. Fining a corporation for breaking a law, or a corporation losing money on a deal, is far different from an employee losing a limb due to unregulated conditions or losing their job and still having to feed children.

Response:  You make a point here that really ignores a major point. Today, unions are in fact corporations in every sense of the world. They were born out of a necessity, true, which you allude to in the statement about an employee losing a limb, but these days there are regulations for these things. And those regulations were brought about because of protests of the workers during the birth of the unions. But, to return to your first point, in many senses the unions have more political power than any single corporation as they are able to skirt the donation rules. That will likely change now that some of those rules have been eased but that is yet to be seen. But, in some cases the unions now have exorbitant power over the companies they are in contract with, and are as abusive in that the use of that power as the companies were during the birth of the unions, sans the working conditions obviously.

But we also need to look at the history of unions. They were born out of necessity and I agree that they were needed. The working conditions and the way some people were taking advantage of their workers were deplorable. But you can’t sugar coat it either. The protests were violent and destructive. And after the Mob joined in to support it got more so. And they were not just attacking the bosses, they attacked workers that crossed the lines as well as workers at companies that did not take advantage of their people yet did similar jobs. And there are still instances to this day of union agitators intimidating people, and the lobbying by unions to make votes to unionize be through public ballots is one of those. There are also incidents of union leadership making back room deals in order to pad their own pockets while selling their members interests short. So don’t make an absolute statement like unions have always stood on the side of people interests as it is just not true. They have stood for some people interests at the cost of others.

JB: The bailouts were given to the banks and corporations that were essentially placed into the system by the same banks and corporations that received the bailouts.

Response: Had a hard time following that sentence. I think you are saying that they created their own regulations that caused them to fail. That is untrue, they took business risks (and in the case of GM also have a very unfavorable contract with the UAW) that were foolish; coupled with regulations placed on them (in the case of the banks at least) as to how much in “risky” loans they had to maintain. Add the housing bubble and a recession and boom! And bailing them out was the absolute worst thing to do.

JB: His quip about the haves and have-nots shows a lack of understanding about how the system works. They don’t have a job, they haven’t been able to get a job despite trying, and if they did get a job somehow, then their wages would remain stagnant, while they got to watch a system tilted in favor of the rich help the rich get even more wealthy. He’s chasing a dream, and the barriers to keeping him there are the barriers that the 99%ers are against.

Response: Pretty sure my “quip” shows that I do understand how things work. I am responsible for me. If I want more then I need to get off my butt and go get it. I do not want a handout. Even when I was poor as dirt I never took anything that I did not earn. I suppose I was poor but proud. I agree that the unemployment situation is bad, but it is a government meddling issue, not a corporation issue. If the government creates an environment where corporations not only want to hire, but need to hire, domestically, then they will. Right now that is not happening, and since the majority of the Obama “jobs” bill is just “Stimulus 2.0,” i.e. high investment for low return jobs going disproportionately to union work for short term positions, that climate is not being created. As for watching the rich get richer, why is it anyone’s business? If they spent more time working on themselves and less drooling in envy at other people’s stuff they would be much happier.

JB: This started off as a grassroots movement of college kids, and now unions are involved, and unions at one time were themselves grassroots movements.

Response: Yes, it started that way all right. A bunch of disaffected people that wanted to protest because corporations are evil made up entities that aren’t doing their civic duty by doing what the protesters think they should be doing. I think. Maybe. But the thing is, the unions taint the message. Which is exactly what happened when the unions were forming, if you recall, organized crime got involved in the workers movement thereby tainting them as well, interesting is it not? Grassroots movements sometimes get hijacked, and just saying something is grassroots does not somehow make it right.

JB: It’s when he got to his red points that I honestly stopped reading. It was just sad to read through, and I’ve got better things to do. Does this person do anything besides watching Fox news? Did he pay attention at all in history class?

Response: So you stopped reading when I started discussing the actual points from the occupy.org site? That was the best part. And I don’t watch Fox news at all. And yes I paid attention, but I also went to schools that actually taught history.

SB: The second red point was ignorant. There are, indeed, successful companies that are run democratically. Your friend basically coughed up a biased point of view without doing any research. Bless his heart :(

Response: Biased? Well yeah, it is my blog. And this is an opinion piece in response to another opinion piece. But I have done my research, and I am hardly ignorant. There are lots of successful companies that run through organizational democracy. But they still have leaders that make decisions without putting each and every idea to a vote and going on consensus. So they are not truly run democratically as the protesters are demanding, which is where my point comes into play. Anyone that has ever served in a group that is democratically run knows how hard it is to pick what to have for lunch, much less run a company.

 But they are also not limiting their demands to any type or size of business. So, based on their statements, if I had a small business and I hired someone then that person should then have an equal say in the direction of the company. And that is ludicrous.

I have a few other things I want to say but I will make those in another post.