DGS49
Diamond Member
President Biden and his minions take every opportunity to promote "high-paying UNION jobs"(!).
But is this appropriate?
In most cases the question of whether the employees of an employer should organize into a union and engage in collective bargaining is an adversarial one. The employees often wish to organize, and the employer invariably wants to avoid dealing with a union. Who is the President to intervene or advocate for the "union side" of the discussion? It is grossly inappropriate. If there were a large nationwide strike say, of the Teamsters, and the President said that the management group should give into the Unions demands, he would be excoriated. It's none of his business.
Let's look at it the other way: if a Republican President spoke out in favor of one of the "transplant" car makers and said the employees should vote against the UAW, the President would be figuratively tarred and feathered in the Media for inappropriately meddling in commercial affairs that are none of his business...and they would be right to do that.
And lest we not forget, unions are a SOCIALIST institution, and unions represent fewer than TEN PERCENT of the private sector work force in the U.S. Without Government putting its figurative thumb on the scales for unions through public sector unions and perverse laws like the Davis Bacon Act, the percentage would be even lower than that.
Like a lot of things in this country, there are two sides to the union story. THey can sing their song about taking care of employees with high wages and good benefits, but it is no coincidence that most of the companies that were dominated by unions 50 years ago are either out of business, offshore, or operating quite differently today, with much less union influence.
Shouldn't the President stay out of this issue/
But is this appropriate?
In most cases the question of whether the employees of an employer should organize into a union and engage in collective bargaining is an adversarial one. The employees often wish to organize, and the employer invariably wants to avoid dealing with a union. Who is the President to intervene or advocate for the "union side" of the discussion? It is grossly inappropriate. If there were a large nationwide strike say, of the Teamsters, and the President said that the management group should give into the Unions demands, he would be excoriated. It's none of his business.
Let's look at it the other way: if a Republican President spoke out in favor of one of the "transplant" car makers and said the employees should vote against the UAW, the President would be figuratively tarred and feathered in the Media for inappropriately meddling in commercial affairs that are none of his business...and they would be right to do that.
And lest we not forget, unions are a SOCIALIST institution, and unions represent fewer than TEN PERCENT of the private sector work force in the U.S. Without Government putting its figurative thumb on the scales for unions through public sector unions and perverse laws like the Davis Bacon Act, the percentage would be even lower than that.
Like a lot of things in this country, there are two sides to the union story. THey can sing their song about taking care of employees with high wages and good benefits, but it is no coincidence that most of the companies that were dominated by unions 50 years ago are either out of business, offshore, or operating quite differently today, with much less union influence.
Shouldn't the President stay out of this issue/