Hatred of unions

[AmazonTania]

Where and when has that ever happened?

The teachers union strike in Chicago which happened not to long ago is a good example. Its very difficult to fire a teacher there. It's great if you are a teacher, no so much if you are a student in a classroom before taught by a teacher who is under-performing. The parents want to be able to identify good teachers and reward them with merit pay, but this isn't want the unions want. What the unions want is everyone to have equal treatment, so no one will know the difference.

The unions there weren't fighting for fair treatment. They were fighting for the lack of accountability. When a union has gained enough power to the point of where they no longer want to be held accountable for what they do, they have far too much power.

And this is the problem with public sector unions. At least a private sector union can move out of the state, and then the teachers would be able to decide if their jobs are worth it. In a public sector job, these employers are stuck.

Apples and Oranges comparison. Public education is not a competitive capitalistic endeavor. It is an essential service. Attempting to rate teachers on the performance of students is a completely false premise. This is akin to rating your job performance on the local rainfall in Peru. There is no connection between the effectiveness of a teacher and the socio-economic status of the students that they are teaching.

You don't believe that the problem with public education is that it's not competitive based? This is the idea with publicly run entities, such as the Post Office and Public Medicine, the idea that it is created to offer an alternative to private entities, but doesn't have to 'perform' to the same standards because it doesn't make a profit. Profits are the only market mechanism which tells an entity to either do more or less of what it's already doing.

The problem with public schools which America can really learn from is that other nations does treat their school system as a competitive endeavor. Schools which are performing up to standards stay open, while the ones which are not close down, and justifiably, as they are wasting resources.

GE's Jack Welch often says that if a nation is to stay vital, it must reward's it's best workers and the bottom 10% must go. Most workers would be better off with a merit based pay, but most union contracts forbid this. The idea of unions is to promote equality in the workplace. Everyone is treated equal, but not when it comes to work or when it comes to accountability. This makes it very difficult for anyone who is more ambitious than the rest to move up in the ladder. There is no autonomy when it comes to unions. It's either my all of us, or none of us.

Children from homes that place a value upon education perfrom better than children from poorer homes where there is little emphasis on education.

Then why force these children to attend school everyday?

So firing a teacher because the students failed to pass is like blaming your car for not starting when you forgot to put gas in it.

I can't tell whether or not you are placing the blame on the student or something else. I don't understand why the blame shouldn't be placed on the teachers. They are hired solely for one purpose: to educate young students. If there are other factors involved in why a student cannot learn, this should be addressed.

Thank you for making the point. Without unions you would be earning a pittance while being forced to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week. If you got sick you would be fired and replaced.

Thanks to unions who were responsible for ensuring that workers were treated well and provided with essential benefits.

But I am not unionised, and this doesn't happen to me. Not because Unions have made it illegal, but because the terms of my employment is already negotiated between my boss and I. I can work 16 hour days if I really need to. I can also work 5 hour days if I really need to. My hours are really not the issue, but the compensation I receive. If my employee wanted to cut my wages, I can't organise. I can go on strike or anything. I can either except my lower wages or find another job. In which case, I am free to go to the competition who will treat me more fairly than my former employer.

Free markets are a myth. In essence they are just another way to undercut the power of the workers while improving the profitability of the corporation.

Except for Qatar, the economies I have named are good examples of a Free Market. In fact, the only two in the world.

Corporations do a have a responsibility to the people of the community in which they are based. If they are purely 100% profit based they end up destroying those communities. Unfettered capitalism is as toxic as communism when it comes to harming people. Without regulation it will do more harm than good.

The only goal of a corporation is to make money. Corporations do have a responsibility to the community, which are their consumers. By providing goods and services, they are creating value and making others better off than they previously were before. These regulations which are enacted to protect the little guy works in favor of the big guy. They use economies of scale to their advantage to keep most of the market-share.

Every business wants 100% of the market-share, so they can gouge their consumers. This is why every business wants a monopoly, and often corporations use regulation to make this happen. Free markets and open competition prevents this, as there is always some form of competition. The only way someone can truly obtain a monopoly is by providing the market with everything they want, and at the same time lowering the price, thus providing the community.

The federation of trade unions has been around in Hong Kong since 1948. Singapore criminalizes the right to strike. Not exactly a bastion of freedom and individual liberty. Qatar is facing the threat of an international boycott of the 2022 World Cup if it continues to obstruct the existence of unions and workers rights. Soccer fans are very pro union.

The number of unions in Hong Kong are much smaller than any other nation in the world, with 654 trade unions registered, consisting of only 683,000 members. Also, it's not uncommon for many industrialised cities to criminialise strikes. New York has done it to the MTA during 2005 when the entire Transit authority decided to go on strike. New York City is about as union friendly as you can get.

The government does NOT pick "winners and losers". The government is the umpire/referee. Until the myth that the government in the problem is dispelled not much is going to be resolved.

Even the umpire/referee can be paid off. And when that keeper of the rules has it out for you, the only thing you can do is try your best to play by the rules given to you. Either that, or pay them so that those rules no longer apply to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

The only people that hate unions are the ones running around inside your head.

In the real world unions are nothing more than corporations that use the crony system commonly known as the government to make it impossible for other businesses to compete with the goods and services they offer. I don't hate corporations either, but I do want to end the crony capitalism that eliminates competition and innovation.

That is where my scorn is directed. I have just as much contempt for Exxon using government regulation to force me to buy a product that I don't want as I do for the AFL/CIO using the government to ensure that alternatives that give workers better options are regulated out of existence by NLRB.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The irony, of course, is had at the advent of the 20th Century employers treated their employees with dignity and respect, paying a living wage and offering safe working conditions, there’d be no need for unions.

But employers didn’t pay a living wage or offer safe working conditions, nor did they threat workers with dignity and respect…

The real irony is that you blame non existent union haters for the inevitable results of government policy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unions were seen by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics as the anathema of free market economics and a distortion on the free market. When the right-wing South American dictators took over in the 1970's, they killed all of the lawyers, university professors and union leaders to stifle all dissent to the freemarket reforms they put in place.

While unions were certainly the reason for the rise of the middle class in Europe and North America, by the 1950's, many of the US unions had been taken over by criminal elements. Jimmy Hoffa is better known as a New York gangster than as the President of the Teamsters Union but he was both.

It was Reagan who initially attacked unions in the US, busting the air traffic controllers' strike by firing all of the workers. Reagan was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, as are successive Presidents since Reagan, until Obama.

Since the Republican Party has been in thrall to Friedman and the Chicago School since the 1970's under Richard Nixon, is it any wonder that they have all been trained to hate unions?

Friedman never said anything that could remotely be interpreted that way. In fact, he actually opposed right to work laws as being anti free market government solutions.

He also opposed laws that require people to join unions, which is what probably has you so confused.

Since your entire post is based on a lie your entire post is completely wrong, and your conclusion deserves as much deference as the belief that the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

I see I have to retract my earlier post that the only people that hate unions exist inside the delusional mind of rabid left wingers.

Most people do not hate unions, they just found alternatives to unions that allow them to get the same thing for less personal cost.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

The majority of the people hate unionized nurses, cops and firefighters? Judging by the reaction of the people following the Friday after the Boston bombing they couldn't show them enough love. The unionized hospital staffs saved the lives of so many victims because they worked tirelessly well beyond the end of their official shifts.

When the US Airways flight ditched in the Hudson river it was unionized airline pilots that kept everyone alive and a unionized aircrew who got them all out to safety and unionized river boat crews that came to their rescue.

The unionized first responders who are always there following disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods are not "hated by a majority of people". They are only "hated" by the small minority who don't want to pay them a living wage and who don't respect the hard work they put in day in and day out.

Why are the pilots and the attendants part of a union? Why were the first responders part of a union? Did they have a free choice in the matter, or was joining the union a condition of them getting the job?

If the best defense you have of unions is that there are people in unions who have no way to get a job without being in the union that should tell you more about why we need to change the system than anything I could possibly argue.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Unions were seen by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics as the anathema of free market economics and a distortion on the free market. When the right-wing South American dictators took over in the 1970's, they killed all of the lawyers, university professors and union leaders to stifle all dissent to the freemarket reforms they put in place.

While unions were certainly the reason for the rise of the middle class in Europe and North America, by the 1950's, many of the US unions had been taken over by criminal elements. Jimmy Hoffa is better known as a New York gangster than as the President of the Teamsters Union but he was both.

It was Reagan who initially attacked unions in the US, busting the air traffic controllers' strike by firing all of the workers. Reagan was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, as are successive Presidents since Reagan, until Obama.

Since the Republican Party has been in thrall to Friedman and the Chicago School since the 1970's under Richard Nixon, is it any wonder that they have all been trained to hate unions?

Killing all the dissenters seems like the antithesis of a 'free market'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The majority of the people hate unionized nurses, cops and firefighters? Judging by the reaction of the people following the Friday after the Boston bombing they couldn't show them enough love. The unionized hospital staffs saved the lives of so many victims because they worked tirelessly well beyond the end of their official shifts.

When the US Airways flight ditched in the Hudson river it was unionized airline pilots that kept everyone alive and a unionized aircrew who got them all out to safety and unionized river boat crews that came to their rescue.

The unionized first responders who are always there following disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods are not "hated by a majority of people". They are only "hated" by the small minority who don't want to pay them a living wage and who don't respect the hard work they put in day in and day out.

So your opinion is that unless these people belonged to a union, they wouldn't show up! Is that what you are saying. It wasn't the skill of the pilot that landed that plane in the Hudson, it was the UNION. Without the union, Sully would have ditched it.

Usually, it is not the union rank and file that's hated but the union structure. That is, until it gets to same place Stockton did.

Stockton bankruptcy showcases results of union greed Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power. The system of capitalism fails when corporations are deregulated and allowed to run wild. The corporate profit motive is the driving engine of capitalism but it isn't a deity to be worshiped above all else. Unions for all their faults are no better or worse as far as corruption goes than their corporate counterparts. If anything the reverse is true. There are far more instances of corporate greed and corruption that there are of unions. The basis for the hatred of unions has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation by corporations. The reality is that unions perform an essential function in a capitalist society.

Friedman was 100% wrong about unions? Does that mean you support right to work laws?

Friedman’s position did not change over the years. In the fortieth-anniversary edition of Capitalism and Freedom (2002) he stated that he was equally opposed to right-to-work laws and to yellow-dog contracts, which make employment conditional on not belonging to a union.
“Given competition among employers and employees,” Friedman wrote, “there seems to be no reason why employers should not be free to offer any terms they want to their employees.” He noted the wide variety of contracts in existence. Some companies provided their workers certain amenities (baseball fields, upgraded rest facilities, etc.) and less cash than other companies that opted for larger cash payouts. This variation did not interfere with individuals’ ability to find employment. Rather, they enabled employers to attract workers with particular preferences and allowed workers to find arrangements that suited their preferences.
“If in fact some employees would prefer to work in firms that have a closed shop and others in firms that have an open shop, there would develop different forms of employment contracts, some having the one provision, others the other provision,” concluded Friedman.

Why Milton Friedman Opposed Right-To-Work - Forbes

I suggest you take the time to actually read what Friedman had to say before you declare yourself an expert on the subject.

For the record, Friedman thought that unions had their place, but their purpose was limited to helping their members. They work in a free market to give people options, but companies sometimes offer different services that do not always help unions. A good example of this would be the dotcom firms that gave stock options and a non traditional working environment and stock options instead of higher wages and traditional benefits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power.

Until they get all of the power. Then what sort of checks and balances do you have in the marketplace.

Where and when has that ever happened?
As in when the employer holds 99.9% of the power and the employee holds 0.01% at most?
Please go right ahead.

Where has that ever happened? It is impossible to fire teachers in NYC even if they actually break the law. That gives unions a hell of a lot more power than you give them credit for.

 

[Eric Cartman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oITaWo5z1IQ]Reagan on Unions, Collective Bargaining, and Freedom. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AmazonTania]

So your opinion is that unless these people belonged to a union, they wouldn't show up! Is that what you are saying. It wasn't the skill of the pilot that landed that plane in the Hudson, it was the UNION. Without the union, Sully would have ditched it.

Usually, it is not the union rank and file that's hated but the union structure. That is, until it gets to same place Stockton did.

Stockton bankruptcy showcases results of union greed Page 1 of 2 | UTSanDiego.com

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power. The system of capitalism fails when corporations are deregulated and allowed to run wild. The corporate profit motive is the driving engine of capitalism but it isn't a deity to be worshiped above all else. Unions for all their faults are no better or worse as far as corruption goes than their corporate counterparts. If anything the reverse is true. There are far more instances of corporate greed and corruption that there are of unions. The basis for the hatred of unions has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation by corporations. The reality is that unions perform an essential function in a capitalist society.

Friedman was 100% wrong about unions? Does that mean you support right to work laws?

Friedman’s position did not change over the years. In the fortieth-anniversary edition of Capitalism and Freedom (2002) he stated that he was equally opposed to right-to-work laws and to yellow-dog contracts, which make employment conditional on not belonging to a union.
“Given competition among employers and employees,” Friedman wrote, “there seems to be no reason why employers should not be free to offer any terms they want to their employees.” He noted the wide variety of contracts in existence. Some companies provided their workers certain amenities (baseball fields, upgraded rest facilities, etc.) and less cash than other companies that opted for larger cash payouts. This variation did not interfere with individuals’ ability to find employment. Rather, they enabled employers to attract workers with particular preferences and allowed workers to find arrangements that suited their preferences.
“If in fact some employees would prefer to work in firms that have a closed shop and others in firms that have an open shop, there would develop different forms of employment contracts, some having the one provision, others the other provision,” concluded Friedman.

Why Milton Friedman Opposed Right-To-Work - Forbes

I suggest you take the time to actually read what Friedman had to say before you declare yourself an expert on the subject.

I think the author intentionally distorted Milton's own words. For example, he quotes Milton as he believes "to be no reason why employers should not be free to offer any terms they want to their employees" and transforming that as, "Why Milton Friedman Opposed Right-To-Work" without giving any greater context of why Friedman supported unions.

For example, my employer offers terms of my employment contract, and I negotiate with him. Am I in a union? Most certainly not. Negotiating the terms of an employment contract (as I have said earlier) is something employees and employers should be able to do, and can be done without the need of unions, mandated wages and mandated employee benefits. This is something Austrians, Libertarians and Free Market Economist term to believe, like Milton Friedman.

I believe the author of that article used a broad statement using another man's words and attached it to the position he does not support. Or maybe he Milton really does support unions. After all, the article is extremely vague and Milton is no longer with us to explain his own words for himself, but this doesn't seem to be factual in the slightest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power. The system of capitalism fails when corporations are deregulated and allowed to run wild. The corporate profit motive is the driving engine of capitalism but it isn't a deity to be worshiped above all else. Unions for all their faults are no better or worse as far as corruption goes than their corporate counterparts. If anything the reverse is true. There are far more instances of corporate greed and corruption that there are of unions. The basis for the hatred of unions has been a deliberate campaign of disinformation by corporations. The reality is that unions perform an essential function in a capitalist society.

Friedman was 100% wrong about unions? Does that mean you support right to work laws?

Friedman’s position did not change over the years. In the fortieth-anniversary edition of Capitalism and Freedom (2002) he stated that he was equally opposed to right-to-work laws and to yellow-dog contracts, which make employment conditional on not belonging to a union.
“Given competition among employers and employees,” Friedman wrote, “there seems to be no reason why employers should not be free to offer any terms they want to their employees.” He noted the wide variety of contracts in existence. Some companies provided their workers certain amenities (baseball fields, upgraded rest facilities, etc.) and less cash than other companies that opted for larger cash payouts. This variation did not interfere with individuals’ ability to find employment. Rather, they enabled employers to attract workers with particular preferences and allowed workers to find arrangements that suited their preferences.
“If in fact some employees would prefer to work in firms that have a closed shop and others in firms that have an open shop, there would develop different forms of employment contracts, some having the one provision, others the other provision,” concluded Friedman.

Why Milton Friedman Opposed Right-To-Work - Forbes

I suggest you take the time to actually read what Friedman had to say before you declare yourself an expert on the subject.

I think the author intentionally distorted Milton's own words. For example, he quotes Milton as he believes "to be no reason why employers should not be free to offer any terms they want to their employees" and transforming that as, "Why Milton Friedman Opposed Right-To-Work" without giving any greater context of why Friedman supported unions.

For example, my employer offers terms of my employment contract, and I negotiate with him. Am I in a union? Most certainly not. Negotiating the terms of an employment contract (as I have said earlier) is something employees and employers should be able to do, and can be done without the need of unions, mandated wages and mandated employee benefits. This is something Austrians, Libertarians and Free Market Economist term to believe, like Milton Friedman.

I believe the author of that article used a broad statement using another man's words and attached it to the position he does not support. Or maybe he Milton really does support unions. After all, the article is extremely vague and Milton is no longer with us to explain his own words for himself, but this doesn't seem to be factual in the slightest.

He did distort the words, but I was using the article to counter the idiotic claim that Friedman was 100% wrong about unions. He truly believed that people should be free to chose for themselves, and that a free market would end up abolishing unions all on its own. The proof that he is right is the fact that the government is the only reason unions still exist, and how vehemently unions respond to ending government regulations that protect their existence. If unions really helped people they would exist in spite of the government, not because of it.

 

[Eric Cartman]

GE's Jack Welch often says that if a nation is to stay vital, it must reward's it's best workers and the bottom 10% must go.

Go where?

 

[AmazonTania]

GE's Jack Welch often says that if a nation is to stay vital, it must reward's it's best workers and the bottom 10% must go.

Go where?

The unemployment line if they can't find another job until then...

 

[OODA_Loop]

Unions went from: Right to work.

To: Right to take from those who work.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Unions were seen by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics as the anathema of free market economics and a distortion on the free market. When the right-wing South American dictators took over in the 1970's, they killed all of the lawyers, university professors and union leaders to stifle all dissent to the freemarket reforms they put in place.

While unions were certainly the reason for the rise of the middle class in Europe and North America, by the 1950's, many of the US unions had been taken over by criminal elements. Jimmy Hoffa is better known as a New York gangster than as the President of the Teamsters Union but he was both.

It was Reagan who initially attacked unions in the US, busting the air traffic controllers' strike by firing all of the workers. Reagan was a huge fan of Milton Friedman, as are successive Presidents since Reagan, until Obama.

Since the Republican Party has been in thrall to Friedman and the Chicago School since the 1970's under Richard Nixon, is it any wonder that they have all been trained to hate unions?

Friedman never said anything that could remotely be interpreted that way. In fact, he actually opposed right to work laws as being anti free market government solutions.

He also opposed laws that require people to join unions, which is what probably has you so confused.

Since your entire post is based on a lie your entire post is completely wrong, and your conclusion deserves as much deference as the belief that the moon is made of green cheese.

That seems a little over the top in the clean debate zone, even for a quantum windbag. The fact is the only important mistake in her post is that Republican presidents mostly opposed unions going all the way back to the post civil war era. Nixon is an important exception, and his is big because he did little to stop the malignancy government worker unions are on the health and well being of the United States.

Roosevelt had enough sense to be very, very clear he opposed government workers unionizing on the basis that there was no one trustworthy to represent taxpayers at government worker bargaining tables. Turns out he was right about that as he was with more than enough of his decisions.

The bottom line on Friedman is he was a lot like Allan Greenspan - a glad handing professional hack with one more important accomplishment than Greenspan, he'd say anything anyone paid him to say and find some gibberish to back it up. Read Friedman on unions below, then apologize to Dragonlady.

[FONT=&quot]“When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot] That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries.” [/FONT]
​

― Milton Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

 

[Warrior102]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

Lazy
Quality Job ZERO
Work certain Hours
Require breaks
Idiots
Fuck em

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That seems a little over the top in the clean debate zone, even for a quantum windbag. The fact is the only important mistake in her post is that Republican presidents mostly opposed unions going all the way back to the post civil war era. Nixon is an important exception, and his is big because he did little to stop the malignancy government worker unions are on the health and well being of the United States.

Why? Is it because it actually tears apart the argument that Friedman hated unions? I will point out that, unlike you, I never attacked the person who made the argument, I just attacked the argument.

Feel free to point out anything I said about any president from either party while you contemplate the fact that personal attacks are actually against the rules here.

Roosevelt had enough sense to be very, very clear he opposed government workers unionizing on the basis that there was no one trustworthy to represent taxpayers at government worker bargaining tables. Turns out he was right about that as he was with more than enough of his decisions.

The bottom line on Friedman is he was a lot like Allan Greenspan - a glad handing professional hack with one more important accomplishment than Greenspan, he'd say anything anyone paid him to say and find some gibberish to back it up. Read Friedman on unions below, then apologize to Dragonlady.

[FONT=&quot]“When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector. [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot] That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries.” [/FONT]
​

― Milton Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

Apologize for what? Can you point out how anything you just quoted can logically be interpreted to mean that "Unions were seen by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics as the anathema of free market economics and a distortion on the free market." What he actually did is explain why, in a free market, unions will not survive.

It appears to me that he was 100% correct in his analysis, despite your insistence that he was a paid hack.

 

[Missourian]

Why the hatred for unions from the right wing? This is a fairly recent attitude in our history from what I can remember. I remember working in non union shops in Texas in the 60's as a welder and the old timers advised me to try to get in a union if I wanted to make good money. Now unions are called communists by the right wingers. If those words were used back in the 50's and 60's there would have been problems. I believed any number of union men back then including my uncles who were also vets of WW2 would have knocked someone's block off for talking like that. After all, the corporations have their unions (job protection). It's called most politicians in their pocket and also the U.S. Supreme court. How ridiculous can it get that Exxon can be a citizen? Never dies, can break up into dozens of holding companies and live in different countries to beat paying taxes, never get drafted, never go to jail, and yet a union worker or teacher receives nothing but scorn? I wonder if the great generation would now say "Yes, this is what we fought for"?

I think you are confusing the Principle of Unionization with the practices of actual real world Unions.

Very few on the right hate the principle...I think unionization is a great idea.

What I am opposed to is the current incarnation of actual real world unions.

I wrote this in 2011...my opinion hasn't changed:

If Unions would get their heads out of their asses, there is definitely a need for Unions, but today's incarnation of Unions...how much can I get, how little can I get away with doing, how difficult can I make it to fire me...doesn't make the grade.


<SNIP>

I've been on at least three, maybe four sides of the battle.

I've been a non-union employee with a company that also had a union workforce.

I joined the union workforce of the same company and became a member of the IBEW Union.

I worked for a non-union company in a different field that competed with union companies.

I started my own business and have been forced to work with many union companies...and I mean forced, because if you want any job to take as long as humanly possible, make sure to hire a union contractor.

I know that we need unions, in fact, I agree with Sallow that we need more unions, but different unions...a new incarnation of the old unions.

Unions should be fighting for a fair wage, not an unsustainable grossly inflated wage.

Unions should protect workers from unwarranted termination, not protect the incompetent, unqualified and just plain lazy from warranted termination.

Unions should incentivize productivity instead of stifle it.

Unions should be concerned with all workers, not just union workers.
Unions are so anti non-union, is it any wonder no one wants to unionize?

Unions should work with management to build better companies, not constantly be at loggerheads. Business wants to make money, unions can contribute to that goal AND advance the interests of their workers.

Unions in their current structure are doomed...the union companies cannot compete unless "the fix is in".

You'll notice at the union rallies, you don't see the Brotherhood, or the Boilermakers, or the Pipefitters or the Teamsters, only the government workers really remain, and that is only because the fix is in...the government doesn't need to make a profit, or have private competition...but they do have to satisfy their investors...the taxpayers.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

It isn't the right that hates unions. Unions are hated by a majority of people. That's why union membership has been dropping across the country and the shift in states is toward right to work.

What happened? That's the question. Unions were very beneficial at one time. They certainly did improve wages and working conditions. As the unions got more powerful they became greedy for the benefit of union bosses. The unions married politicians and created what's been called "unholy alliances". Worker's paid into unions, who used those dues to support politicians, who used their office to benefit the unions. Now there is a revolution with Americans who now hate unions.

Almost all of that is wrong. There is no evidence proving very many people of normal intelligence and emotional development have anti- views on private sector unions. The lowest support for unions ever recorded was after the auto industry bailout in 2009, 48%. Today it is safely over 50% and rising. When government worker unions are stripped out support for unions is above 60%.

Further, attitudes toward unions are party dependent. Democratic Party support for unions approaches 80% while just about one-in-four of the party of reactionaries supports unions.

In addition, union corruption was mostly against union members; it never approached effects on the public of, say, price fixing among corporations or corporations buying influence from politicians. The NEA/AFT have held America's children hostage to get pay raises, etc., but that is avarice, something the party of reaction regularly blesses and Reagan signed the biggest pay raises in federal government history signing pay parity bills - perhaps to atone for his acts against the ATC union.

The disheartening thing is how few realize the dangers of government worker unions. The NEA/AFT are the most dangerous organizations in the United States yet Reagan's signature blessing federal union pay parity bills led directly to huge increases at state and local levels. That is not Reagan's fault but it is perhaps an INTENDED consequence based on NEA/AFT lobbying at federal level at the time.