Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

[Esmeralda]

I think it is interesting that people don't realize they are fortunate to have a job. The person/people/company you work for does not have to hire you; there are always others as well qualified. Be appreciative of the fact you have a job and do what you need to do to keep it. I have many times paid union dues when I would have preferred not to; but as it was a condition of the job, I did it and was glad I had a job. If you don't like your job or employer, get another job, if you can. If you are not qualified for another job, get the qualifications. No one owes you a living.

 

[Publius1787]

I think it is interesting that people don't realize they are fortunate to have a job. The person/people/company you work for does not have to hire you; there are always others as well qualified. Be appreciative of the fact you have a job and do what you need to do to keep it. I have many times paid union dues when I would have preferred not to; but as it was a condition of the job, I did it and was glad I had a job. If you don't like your job or employer, get another job, if you can. If you are not qualified for another job, get the qualifications. No one owes you a living.

Indeed, no one owes you a living! What a great statement! Can the employer say the same to a union in many states? Absolutely not!

Could you imagine the fallout?

"YOUR FIRED! No one owes you a living! (And along comes wrongful termination court battles and he NLRB)"

 

[Esmeralda]

I think it is interesting that people don't realize they are fortunate to have a job. The person/people/company you work for does not have to hire you; there are always others as well qualified. Be appreciative of the fact you have a job and do what you need to do to keep it. I have many times paid union dues when I would have preferred not to; but as it was a condition of the job, I did it and was glad I had a job. If you don't like your job or employer, get another job, if you can. If you are not qualified for another job, get the qualifications. No one owes you a living.

Indeed, no one owes you a living! What a great statement! Can the employer say the same to a union in many states? Absolutely not!

Could you imagine the fallout?

"YOUR FIRED! No one owes you a living! (And along comes wrongful termination court battles and he NLRB)"

No one owes a company a living. They have to function within the society, culture and economy. Do you think if an American company sets up in a foreign country, and the foreign country insists on a union, that the American company can just say, no, we don't want a union? They are lucky to be able to set up in that country and they do what they have to do. A company is lucky to have a business and make a profit. If they don't like it, they can set up a business where there are not unions. Both companies and individuals are lucky to be able to make a living/profit. Both companies and individuals have to do what they have to do to earn a living. If you don't like it, find another way to earn a living. If you don't like paying union dues, get another job and stop whining.

 

[Publius1787]

I think it is interesting that people don't realize they are fortunate to have a job. The person/people/company you work for does not have to hire you; there are always others as well qualified. Be appreciative of the fact you have a job and do what you need to do to keep it. I have many times paid union dues when I would have preferred not to; but as it was a condition of the job, I did it and was glad I had a job. If you don't like your job or employer, get another job, if you can. If you are not qualified for another job, get the qualifications. No one owes you a living.

Indeed, no one owes you a living! What a great statement! Can the employer say the same to a union in many states? Absolutely not!

Could you imagine the fallout?

"YOUR FIRED! No one owes you a living! (And along comes wrongful termination court battles and he NLRB)"

No one owes a company a living. They have to function within the society, culture and economy. Do you think if an American company sets up in a foreign country, and the foreign country insists on a union, that the American company can just say, no, we don't want a union? They are lucky to be able to set up in that country and they do what they have to do. Both companies and individuals have to do what they have to do to earn a living. If you don't like it, find another way to earn a living. If you don't like paying union dues, get another job and stop whining.

Company's don't demand a living! They live and die at the whims of the consumer. It's called voluntary exchange/association, a practice that unions would like to make illegal. Indeed, a company cannot force a person to buy their goods. The company already functions within society. It's unions who don't function within society. In fact, it's the unions attempt to achieve a societal privilege by use of force that make them unique. A man does not give up his liberty or his hard earned property by virtue of opening a business, although, that's what a union would have you believe. There are some things that cannot be voted away from a person.

 

[Esmeralda]

Indeed, no one owes you a living! What a great statement! Can the employer say the same to a union in many states? Absolutely not!

Could you imagine the fallout?

"YOUR FIRED! No one owes you a living! (And along comes wrongful termination court battles and he NLRB)"

No one owes a company a living. They have to function within the society, culture and economy. Do you think if an American company sets up in a foreign country, and the foreign country insists on a union, that the American company can just say, no, we don't want a union? They are lucky to be able to set up in that country and they do what they have to do. Both companies and individuals have to do what they have to do to earn a living. If you don't like it, find another way to earn a living. If you don't like paying union dues, get another job and stop whining.

Company's don't demand a living! They live and die at the whims of the consumer. It's called voluntary exchange/association, a practice that unions would like to make illegal. Indeed, a company cannot force a person to buy their goods. The company already functions within society. It's unions who don't function within society. In fact, it's the unions attempt to achieve a societal privilege by use of force that make them unique. A man does not give up his liberty or his hard earned property by virtue of opening a business, although, that's what a union would have you believe. There are some things that cannot be voted away from a person.

Do you know that every country in the world that doesn't have unions is a 3rd world country? Go live in one of those and see how you like it as a working class person.

 

[Publius1787]

No one owes a company a living. They have to function within the society, culture and economy. Do you think if an American company sets up in a foreign country, and the foreign country insists on a union, that the American company can just say, no, we don't want a union? They are lucky to be able to set up in that country and they do what they have to do. Both companies and individuals have to do what they have to do to earn a living. If you don't like it, find another way to earn a living. If you don't like paying union dues, get another job and stop whining.

Company's don't demand a living! They live and die at the whims of the consumer. It's called voluntary exchange/association, a practice that unions would like to make illegal. Indeed, a company cannot force a person to buy their goods. The company already functions within society. It's unions who don't function within society. In fact, it's the unions attempt to achieve a societal privilege by use of force that make them unique. A man does not give up his liberty or his hard earned property by virtue of opening a business, although, that's what a union would have you believe. There are some things that cannot be voted away from a person.

Do you know that every country in the world that doesn't have unions is a 3rd world country? Go live in one of those and see how you like it as a working class person.

I've been to Iraq, Kuwait, Thailand, Philippines, Afghanistan, South Africa, Spain, Germany, Singapore, Okinawa, Mexico, Guam, Australia, Indonesia, S Korea, and I could go on and on. I've seen people live through the most nasty squalor you could ever imagine. I've lived in the most nasty squalor you could ever imagine. I've also seen people prosper in the most negative of conditions. You can certainly thank unions for making the third world much more attractive to businesses from unionized countries. In fact, globalization is irradiating poverty and hunger. I suppose we have the unions to thank for that. The only problem is that I would prefer that we stay competitive for jobs along the way. The purpose of a union is to shield its workers from competition at everyone else's expense. It comes at the expense of the poor, it comes at the expense of the consumer, it comes at the expense of the shareholder, it comes at the expense of the business owner, it comes at the expense of competition, it comes at the expense of innovation, and it comes at the expense of those who they unnaturally force out of the market, and it comes at the expense of the taxpayer.

So as long as you can achieve high employment the demand for labor will be such that wages are high. High employment does not come from unions. Unions do more to harm employment than to promote it. So as long as you have a business friendly environment you can achieve high employment. Unions are not business friendly until a non-union competitor threatens their job, then they're friendly to only their business as they attempt to use force outside the market to shut the competitor down.

 

[JQPublic1]

In the ought-70's one condition of my summer employment was that I join the union. Pay was good (for that time), but the only time union reps made a visit to the plant was after it flooded. We worked our asses off drying and cleaning tons of bare steel.

Their response? It essentially was our fault it happened in the first place.

Then there were the older union farts that spent most their time standing around flapping jaw.

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that skilled labor is more valuable than un skilled labor. However , your statement is a non-sequitur. Population and job numbers have nothing to do with your opening sentence. Your oversimplification falls flat because the reader is left wondering what the hell you are talking about!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Many unions provide training. IBEW Los Angeles and Operator Union 503 Los Angeles are two I'll mention of many. They're affiliated with local community colleges also but the classes are hands on and taught by journeymen usually, and safety on the job as well as technical info, is stressed. I've never met a union boss who's a thug although sometimes they might ignore the members, like any organization you have your jerks. The very wealthy and corporations have their unions also. One of the best that represent them is the US Supreme court, which declared corporations 1st class citizens. 1st class citizens can't be drafted or jailed. Instead of jail, pay a paltry fine which can be written off as business expenses which the rest of us 2nd class citizens cannot do. Corporations (1st class citizens) unlike the rest of us 2nd class citizens, can also operate in USA but claim Ireland or caiman islands or whatever, as their residence to lower their taxes, which right wing 2nd class citizens think is wonderful for some strange reason.

A long-time friend of mine, who is a "union man", whose father was a "union man", convinced me to grudgingly concede that the trade unions (i.e. carpenters, steam-fitters, steel workers, etc), might still serve some purpose. Mostly, training issue and the fact that members are called on a maintained list, or can report to the union hall when they need work, convinced me there might be some small benefit for skilled tradesmen to belong to a union. But there are loads of unions, many of them public-sector unions, that do nothing of the sort for their members. Oh, and don't leave a job where such a union exists without pulling your "traveler's card".

So, yes, there may still be some reason for certain types of unions to exist, but belonging should be an option. Other unions...yeah, a bunch of crooks and thieves whose livelihoods rely on how much they can squeeze out of their captive audience.

Suppose you take a job in a union shop where the hourly wage is $30 and all the standard benefits apply. Then one day there is a meeting and all the union members say there is no reason to continue paying dues and you all agree to purge the union. Then a week after the union is abolished the boss calls a meeting and says your hourly wage is now $15, there no longer is overtime pay, no paid vacation, no sick leave, and no break time -- and if you don't like it you can quit.

What do you do?

I avoid working places where union goons hold sway and extort money from me, thanks. The one union shop I did work in, every time the union negotiated, one "class" of union workers got all the bennies and pay raises, the other "classes" got a helluva lot less. So, even workers paying the same union to represent them get unequal treatment under union contracts.
Personally, I do quite well negotiating for myself. Because I work hard, strive to improve my marketable skills, and make myself valuable to the company, I manage well enough. Why should I pay someone else to do what I can do for myself?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Company's don't demand a living! They live and die at the whims of the consumer. It's called voluntary exchange/association, a practice that unions would like to make illegal. Indeed, a company cannot force a person to buy their goods. The company already functions within society. It's unions who don't function within society. In fact, it's the unions attempt to achieve a societal privilege by use of force that make them unique. A man does not give up his liberty or his hard earned property by virtue of opening a business, although, that's what a union would have you believe. There are some things that cannot be voted away from a person.

Do you know that every country in the world that doesn't have unions is a 3rd world country? Go live in one of those and see how you like it as a working class person.

I've been to Iraq, Kuwait, Thailand, Philippines, Afghanistan, South Africa, Spain, Germany, Singapore, Okinawa, Mexico, Guam, Australia, Indonesia, S Korea, and I could go on and on. I've seen people live through the most nasty squalor you could ever imagine. I've lived in the most nasty squalor you could ever imagine. I've also seen people prosper in the most negative of conditions. You can certainly thank unions for making the third world much more attractive to businesses from unionized countries. In fact, globalization is irradiating poverty and hunger. I suppose we have the unions to thank for that. The only problem is that I would prefer that we stay competitive for jobs along the way. The purpose of a union is to shield its workers from competition at everyone else's expense. It comes at the expense of the poor, it comes at the expense of the consumer, it comes at the expense of the shareholder, it comes at the expense of the business owner, it comes at the expense of competition, it comes at the expense of innovation, and it comes at the expense of those who they unnaturally force out of the market, and it comes at the expense of the taxpayer.

So as long as you can achieve high employment the demand for labor will be such that wages are high. High employment does not come from unions. Unions do more to harm employment than to promote it. So as long as you have a business friendly environment you can achieve high employment. Unions are not business friendly until a non-union competitor threatens their job, then they're friendly to only their business as they attempt to use force outside the market to shut the competitor down.

And guess what? Every time unions drive another American manufacturer or other business overseas, you can pretty much count on their new employees being very appreciative of those jobs. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people here who would be equally happy to have those jobs, too.

 

[Publius1787]

Do you know that every country in the world that doesn't have unions is a 3rd world country? Go live in one of those and see how you like it as a working class person.

I've been to Iraq, Kuwait, Thailand, Philippines, Afghanistan, South Africa, Spain, Germany, Singapore, Okinawa, Mexico, Guam, Australia, Indonesia, S Korea, and I could go on and on. I've seen people live through the most nasty squalor you could ever imagine. I've lived in the most nasty squalor you could ever imagine. I've also seen people prosper in the most negative of conditions. You can certainly thank unions for making the third world much more attractive to businesses from unionized countries. In fact, globalization is irradiating poverty and hunger. I suppose we have the unions to thank for that. The only problem is that I would prefer that we stay competitive for jobs along the way. The purpose of a union is to shield its workers from competition at everyone else's expense. It comes at the expense of the poor, it comes at the expense of the consumer, it comes at the expense of the shareholder, it comes at the expense of the business owner, it comes at the expense of competition, it comes at the expense of innovation, and it comes at the expense of those who they unnaturally force out of the market, and it comes at the expense of the taxpayer.

So as long as you can achieve high employment the demand for labor will be such that wages are high. High employment does not come from unions. Unions do more to harm employment than to promote it. So as long as you have a business friendly environment you can achieve high employment. Unions are not business friendly until a non-union competitor threatens their job, then they're friendly to only their business as they attempt to use force outside the market to shut the competitor down.

And guess what? Every time unions drive another American manufacturer or other business overseas, you can pretty much count on their new employees being very appreciative of those jobs. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people here who would be equally happy to have those jobs, too.

Wasn't that what I said?

 

[Publius1787]

You said the pay was good. Do you think that was so because of the inherent generosity of the employer? The pay was good for someone like you, who just walked into the job, because those old time jaw-flapping "union farts" did all the heavy-lifting it took to make the pay "good."

So you paid a few bucks to the union but you got it back tenfold in terms of "good pay."

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that skilled labor is more valuable than un skilled labor. However , your statement is a non-sequitur. Population and job numbers have nothing to do with your opening sentence. Your oversimplification falls flat because the reader is left wondering what the hell you are talking about!

Has anyone ever heard about a little think called the labor market? has anyone here ever heard of the demand for labor? Can anyone please explain the correlation between work force population and unemployment combined with how they effect wages? They're not getting it.

 

[Bombur]

Unions are no longer an effective way to represent labor for the most part.

Why not?

They have been critical in our history but we need to develop other methods that can help labor get the representation that it needs.

Such as?

Keep in mind that the biggest problem the US faces today is a weak labor market.

Bigger than our corporate-corrupted Congress?

A market that has been poorly represented as people have found ways to turn the working people of America against themselves.

The working people of America are their own worst enemy. They have grown lazily complacent and allowed their corrupted legislators to undo most of the benefits earned by the blood, sweat, and tears of those who gave rise to the Union Movement.

As it is, things will need to get worse before they get better.

Their leverage depends on them controlling enough of the labor pool so that the employer has to negotiate with everyone. Their leverage also depends on government allowing them to establish their leverage. Unions can still be effective in some instance, like police and teachers, but unions will never be the force they once were. Biggest reason is globalization.

I think labor needs to be better represented at the national level as a whole.

Yes a weak labor pool is worse than problems in Congress.

Too few people think of themselves as labor these days.

 

[Bombur]

Pay has always had less to do with unions and more to do with a high demand for skilled labor. If the population is 10000 and you only have enough jobs for 3000, chances are you aren't going to get paid much because you are easily replicable. If you are highly skilled and there are jobs for 9750 among a 10000 population you are likely to get paid more. That's simple economics, not the benefits of unionization.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that skilled labor is more valuable than un skilled labor. However , your statement is a non-sequitur. Population and job numbers have nothing to do with your opening sentence. Your oversimplification falls flat because the reader is left wondering what the hell you are talking about!

Has anyone ever heard about a little think called the labor market? has anyone here ever heard of the demand for labor? Can anyone please explain the correlation between work force population and unemployment combined with how they effect wages? They're not getting it.

Actually more production can lead to lower wages due to lower demand for labor. Skilled v unskilled is not nearly as important as underlying problems associated with stagnation of wages leading to stagnation of demand as production capacity increases.

Unions didn't just fight for higher wages. They fought for better working conditions and other benefits. All of which lead to a growing working class and middle class that created enough demand to actually feed the increasing production capacity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Should People be Forced to Pay dues to a Union as a Condition of their Employment?

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

And then they got greedy and corrupt.

Examples of greed and corruption are missing from your 'sage' remark.

If one wants to observe greed and corruption I'd advise a look-see at members of the H. of Rep. and the salary and benefits of CEO's, CFO's and Wall Street Bankers and Brokers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I voted YES for the following reasons and more! These benefits were paid for by he blood, sweat and tears of Union members, not tomention hard cold dues money. No leeching RW anal retentive jerk should get a free ride; especially when they scream and bray incessantly about "welfare queens" and constantly conjure apparitions of poor people getting something for nothing.

Does any sane worker really want a relaspe of the following:

1. The Unions gave us the week end leisure time.

2. Unions helped end child labor

3. Unions won Widespread Employer Based Health Coverage!

4. Unions Spearheaded the Fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act!

5. The Unions helped to build the Middle-Class!

And then they got greedy and corrupt.

Examples of greed and corruption are missing from your 'sage' remark.

If one wants to observe greed and corruption I'd advise a look-see at members of the H. of Rep. and the salary and benefits of CEO's, CFO's and Wall Street Bankers and Brokers.

Examples of greed and corruption are also missing from your equally "sage" remark.

But thanks for playing!

 

[Publius1787]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that skilled labor is more valuable than un skilled labor. However , your statement is a non-sequitur. Population and job numbers have nothing to do with your opening sentence. Your oversimplification falls flat because the reader is left wondering what the hell you are talking about!

Has anyone ever heard about a little think called the labor market? has anyone here ever heard of the demand for labor? Can anyone please explain the correlation between work force population and unemployment combined with how they effect wages? They're not getting it.

Actually more production can lead to lower wages due to lower demand for labor. Skilled v unskilled is not nearly as important as underlying problems associated with stagnation of wages leading to stagnation of demand as production capacity increases.

Unions didn't just fight for higher wages. They fought for better working conditions and other benefits. All of which lead to a growing working class and middle class that created enough demand to actually feed the increasing production capacity.

The smaller the labor pool, no matter how you frame it, ensures higher wages as businesses compete for the same labor. Unions did not shrink unemployment they encouraged it as they still do. Americas transition to an industrial economy was natural and the ills of the work place naturally went away as unemployment decreased.

 

[Bombur]

Has anyone ever heard about a little think called the labor market? has anyone here ever heard of the demand for labor? Can anyone please explain the correlation between work force population and unemployment combined with how they effect wages? They're not getting it.

Actually more production can lead to lower wages due to lower demand for labor. Skilled v unskilled is not nearly as important as underlying problems associated with stagnation of wages leading to stagnation of demand as production capacity increases.

Unions didn't just fight for higher wages. They fought for better working conditions and other benefits. All of which lead to a growing working class and middle class that created enough demand to actually feed the increasing production capacity.

The smaller the labor pool, no matter how you frame it, ensures higher wages as businesses compete for the same labor. Unions did not shrink unemployment they encouraged it as they still do. Americas transition to an industrial economy was natural and the ills of the work place naturally went away as unemployment decreased.

The only thing you said that was right is that a smaller labor pool leads to higher wages no matter how you frame it. Unionization is based on that exact concept of manipulating the supply of labor.

Everything else you said is just wrong historically. The ills of the workplace went away because unions and government addressed them.

 

[Publius1787]

Actually more production can lead to lower wages due to lower demand for labor. Skilled v unskilled is not nearly as important as underlying problems associated with stagnation of wages leading to stagnation of demand as production capacity increases.

Unions didn't just fight for higher wages. They fought for better working conditions and other benefits. All of which lead to a growing working class and middle class that created enough demand to actually feed the increasing production capacity.

The smaller the labor pool, no matter how you frame it, ensures higher wages as businesses compete for the same labor. Unions did not shrink unemployment they encouraged it as they still do. Americas transition to an industrial economy was natural and the ills of the work place naturally went away as unemployment decreased.

The only thing you said that was right is that a smaller labor pool leads to higher wages no matter how you frame it. Unionization is based on that exact concept of manipulating the supply of labor.

Everything else you said is just wrong historically. The ills of the workplace went away because unions and government addressed them.

Unions defend their workers from competition and natural market forces. Currently, they are trying to sustain themselves via increasing the minimum wage and legalizing millions of illegal immigrants. That's way the unions are more competitive against minimum wage jobs and more competitive against cheap migrant labor who are now entitled to higher pay. It has nothing to do with compassion or the need for higher wages. It has everything to do with addressing their relevancy as compared to the non-unionized work force. They want an artificial market during a time of globalization, and thus, they are perfectly fine with placing us at a competitive disadvantage so as long as their wages and benefits aren't affected.

Indeed, they push for higher wages, higher regulations, tariffs, and legalization because they simply cant compete. They are the kings of creating artificial barriers of entry for small businesses. They are the largest perpetrators of killing education for our children in the North. They have no problem with rising prices that hurt the poor. When they retire, they move away from the democratic country they ruined and to the South whereas it is unaffected by artificial union induced cost of living inflation. Go figure.

The market decides wages and benefits. The unions job is to ensure the market does not. The unions job is to ensure that their wages and benefits are protected at the expense of outside labor forces, the share holders, the customers, the unemployed, business owners, and the American people.

 

[Bombur]

The market decides wages and benefits. The unions job is to ensure the market does not.

I will focus on the part of your statement worth addressing.

There is no doubt that unions have lost the ability to effectively work in a globalized world. I have already said as much and don't think they are the answer going forward.

I do think it is their job to address issues in the market. I think it is even more accurate to say that labor in general should organize and represent their needs in the marketplace. When China manipulates the USD all labor should stand up and cry foul. When the nation makes regulations concerning the environment that hurts domestic production and encourages foreign production AND environmental destruction the laborers should cry foul. When corporate taxes benefit imports more than domestic production all labor should cry foul. When the tax structure of the nation is regressive labor should cry foul. When government programs at the low end of the income spectrum manipulate the incentive to work so much that it is no longer worth working labor should cry foul. When the entire world has a healthcare system that is more efficient than ours labor should cry foul.

Our politicians need to spend more time worrying about the middle and less time worrying about the edges. Everyone depends on that middle because they do most of the living, working, and dying in this country.

 

[Publius1787]

The market decides wages and benefits. The unions job is to ensure the market does not.

I will focus on the part of your statement worth addressing.

There is no doubt that unions have lost the ability to effectively work in a globalized world. I have already said as much and don't think they are the answer going forward.

I do think it is their job to address issues in the market. I think it is even more accurate to say that labor in general should organize and represent their needs in the marketplace. When China manipulates the USD all labor should stand up and cry foul. When the nation makes regulations concerning the environment that hurts domestic production and encourages foreign production AND environmental destruction the laborers should cry foul. When corporate taxes benefit imports more than domestic production all labor should cry foul. When the tax structure of the nation is regressive labor should cry foul. When government programs at the low end of the income spectrum manipulate the incentive to work so much that it is no longer worth working labor should cry foul. When the entire world has a healthcare system that is more efficient than ours labor should cry foul.

Our politicians need to spend more time worrying about the middle and less time worrying about the edges. Everyone depends on that middle because they do most of the living, working, and dying in this country.

Those countries who promote equality over individual liberty will receive neither. Those who promote individual liberty over equality will receive a great deal of both. Unions are not conducive to individual liberty or equality. They are a barrier to both. Indeed, America was crying foul long before unions. Unions are not necessary in this respect. Crying foul ended slavery, economically harmful tariffs, and much more during the 19th century. Moreover, people should be crying foul when a union creates an artificial market with undue political influence at the expense of the American people.