what is your opinion of unions?

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Dude...I am not going to sit here and list for you every potential good reason for a union to exist.

I didnt say a union cant exist, all I said was they should be held to the same legal standards as ANY organization. (I.E. antitrust laws apply)

I've said it a dozen times already in this thread and others, if people want to organize, more power to them! This is America, let freedom ring, right?

 

[Pacemaker]

My issue with unions (in the town I live in, I can't judge other towns) is that they complain constantly and tell people to not buy things from their company even when they aren't on strike (sounds like biting the hand that feeds you to me).

The last time they almost had a strike it was due to a state law that banned smoking in public places. In their contract it says they can smoke, but that doesn't trump state law...

The time before that it was because the company banned wearing hats that depicted competitors... Seriously, would anyone but a union guy even consider doing something like that in the first place?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
However, a parasite has to be careful not to kill its host. If the company goes out of business, then the union ultimately suffers the consequences since the laborers no longer have an employer. Therefore it is in the interest of unions not to ruin the companies where the members work.

cough cough, UAW.
and i like the use of the word parasite, because that's exactly what unions are.

parasite: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

"leech" would be even more appropriate.

So you lose your job to a Union shop? Bitter that some guy who's union makes more than you? Bug crawl up your ass and die?

nope, i've had no exposure or experience with unions.
in fact, the only situation where unions have impacted me was the NYC MTA strike, and it is because of this i have negative feelings towards unions.

crippling the city because subway platform sweepers and token booth clerks didn't think $50k/year was enough for someone without HS diplomas :roll:
and now the riders are facing fare hikes every couple of years.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
However, a parasite has to be careful not to kill its host. If the company goes out of business, then the union ultimately suffers the consequences since the laborers no longer have an employer. Therefore it is in the interest of unions not to ruin the companies where the members work.

cough cough, UAW.
and i like the use of the word parasite, because that's exactly what unions are.

parasite: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

"leech" would be even more appropriate.

So you lose your job to a Union shop? Bitter that some guy who's union makes more than you? Bug crawl up your ass and die?

nope, i've had no exposure or experience with unions.
in fact, the only situation where unions have impacted me was the NYC MTA strike, and it is because of this i have negative feelings towards unions.

crippling the city because subway platform sweepers and token booth clerks didn't think $50k/year was enough for someone without HS diplomas :roll:
and now the riders are facing fare hikes every couple of years.

Well don't you think it's a bit unfair to label all unions as "leeches" based just on your experience with MTA?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Genx87
If without Unions we would go back to slave wages and zero benefits. Then why does about 85% of the workforce not work under a Union and recieve far better wages and benefits that your prediction?

I thought you were older than you're statement reflects. 30-40 years ago middle class blue collars jobs came with pensions and paid health care (100% employers paid)


"Most union-negotiated pension plans are defined-benefit pension plans, which for decades have guaranteed retirees a fixed monthly income. These defined-benefit plans are usually funded entirely by employers through tax-exempt contributions and automatically cover all qualified employees. Since 1978, the number of defined-benefit plans plummeted from 128,041 plans covering some 41 percent of private-sector workers to only 26,000 today, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 21 percent of workers in the private sector have defined-benefit pensions.

Many companies have eliminated their defined-benefit plans and others have reduced the value of benefits and shifted to providing benefits through 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans. In these plans, the employer only contributes a fixed amount to the plan each year. Defined-contribution plans shift the investment risk and responsibility to individual workers and typically reduce corporate costs."

Pensions, like SS, are unrealistic without very good growth in profits. The simple fact is a 401K plan is a better alternative for both parties involved.

I disagree, you pay for your 401k. There is a reason companies switched to them, it wasnt to help you, it was to increase their profit.

401ks are mutually beneficial. Rarely can you move a fixed pension after putting 10 years into a company. With a 401k you can just take it to the next job.

Most people would PREFER a 401k to a fixed pension if thier company offered both.

Theres nothing wrong with something being mutually beneficial... I know its hard ot believe, the union types think good things only come through fear and extermely large quantities of money spent on union "negotiators"... scare the eveil CEO's! pfft get a clue.

Well a 401k is better than nothing but you realize many people end up underfunded at their retirement age and have keep working. Some companies have no match or little match...they are paying for their own retirement.

Most 401k plans require you to be vested....if you leave you take your money but not thiers.

But if you want to tell yourself your 401k is better than say, Boeings retirement plan....

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well don't you think it's a bit unfair to label all unions as "leeches" based just on your experience with MTA?

no, not all, just most
but the first impression is usually a lasting one, and all encompassing.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: bctbct
[

401ks are mutually beneficial. Rarely can you move a fixed pension after putting 10 years into a company. With a 401k you can just take it to the next job.

Most people would PREFER a 401k to a fixed pension if thier company offered both.

Theres nothing wrong with something being mutually beneficial... I know its hard ot believe, the union types think good things only come through fear and extermely large quantities of money spent on union "negotiators"... scare the eveil CEO's! pfft get a clue.
[/quote]


Well a 401k is better than nothing but you realize many people end up underfunded at their retirement age and have keep working. Some companies have no match or little match...they are paying for their own retirement.

Most 401k plans require you to be vested....if you leave you take your money but not thiers.

But if you want to tell yourself your 401k is better than say, Boeings retirement plan....

[/quote]

401K's don't compare to a defined benefit penson, and while they're better than nothing, they are really only of benefit to the employer.

Employees are actually the ones who pay the pension costs, not the employer. It's usually a bargaining issue, and the employees vote on how much of any raises to allocate to the pension plan and annuity if they have one of those too.

The pension plan in my local is about $5.00/hour worked, doesn't matter if it's straight time, overtime, or double time. Most Operating Engineers around here work 1300-1500 hours per year. I averaged 2200 hours or more. It takes about 1000 hours per year to get 1 pension credit, (and only one allowed per year) and each pension credit is worth about $400 per year at retirement. ALL extra hours worked are credited to the pension fund amount, but still only one pension credit per year. ( I never did like that rule, but...)

BTW, under Federal law, ALL pensions are fully vested after 5 continuous years. In the construction trades, where union hands may change jobs frequently, they never lose that pension by changing jobs, PLUS, if you change union locals (same union, different area) your pension can follow you through the central pension office. Once you vest however, that amount is yours regardless of what you do.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Dude...I am not going to sit here and list for you every potential good reason for a union to exist.

I didnt say a union cant exist, all I said was they should be held to the same legal standards as ANY organization. (I.E. antitrust laws apply)

I've said it a dozen times already in this thread and others, if people want to organize, more power to them! This is America, let freedom ring, right?

Ok, I reread your post and I misunderstood a key sentence which I owe you an apology for. When you mentioned the removal of their monopolistic powers, I basically read that as removing the unions themselves. It was painfully obvious to me what you meant when I reread it this morning so I can't really tell you why I made the mistake yesterday but it happens.

Anyways, in regards to some of the more "monopolistic" powers that you mention, that's a tricky one. The way I see it is that it all boils down to who is running the show on both sides. On the union side, these powers that you are referring to can be used as a very strong weapon to counter businesses which are truly treating their employees unfairly. However, that power can also easily be abused and misused if the wrong people are in charge. Likewise, taking away that power can very easily put businesses in positions where they can more easily abuse and unfairly treat their employees without having to deal with nearly as much pressure or stress from the unions. Again, this all boils down to who is in charge. In almost all cases, businesses typically have a lot more power over the employees than the employees have over the businesses which is why I tend to favor the policies, procedures, and powers which most unions have. What I do not always favor is how those policies, procedures, and powers are used. I can say the same about common business practices as well though.

In the end, there is a lot of room for abuse on both sides of the tracks and no one has come up with a way that truly keeps things balanced fairly on both sides to minimize abuse of power. If you or anyone comes up with a more solid procedure which works better then odds are you will become a very rich and powerful person. However, simply tipping the needle more towards the side of business really doesn't solve the problem. Taking away too much of the power which you disagree with when it comes to unions can very easily put the more productive and honest unions in a position where they are doomed to fail as a result of the business dominating over them with their power. All it does is change the problem to favor businesses more than the employees in terms of opportunity for abuse. That is not a real solution in my eyes.

Also, don't forget that businesses are in the business to make money, be greedy, and make more than "the other guy". They will almost naturally make decisions which they believe are fair but really just favor themselves a whole lot.

 

[Train]

and the "good unions" you guys keep reminding us of will do just fine after the NLA is revised, so I dont know why you keep fighting it. Kill the room for abuse, and maybe the poll in this thread wouldnt be so lopsided to the bad.

If one person walks past the bank vault without taking money, they doesnt mean the door should be left opened.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train
and the "good unions" you guys keep reminding us of will do just fine after the NLA is revised, so I dont know why you keep fighting it. Kill the room for abuse, and maybe the poll in this thread wouldnt be so lopsided to the bad.

If one person walks past the bank vault without taking money, they doesnt mean the door should be left opened.

Let us hope that it is revised in such a way where the balance in power is not tipped too much the other direction. People fear that possibility which is why they fight it. It is much easier to take power away from organizations which defend the little people than it is to grant it to them. Otherwise, I am all for updating rules and policies which adapt to the times and such.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train
and the "good unions" you guys keep reminding us of will do just fine after the NLA is revised, so I dont know why you keep fighting it. Kill the room for abuse, and maybe the poll in this thread wouldnt be so lopsided to the bad.

If one person walks past the bank vault without taking money, they doesnt mean the door should be left opened.

Let us hope that it is revised in such a way where the balance in power is not tipped too much the other direction. People fear that possibility which is why they fight it. It is much easier to take power away from organizations which defend the little people than it is to grant it to them. Otherwise, I am all for updating rules and policies which adapt to the times and such.

You act like its some sort of complex forumula with tons of rules.

Its very simple, treat unions EXACTLY the same as any other business. Then you dont have to worry about "balance", any rules that apply to one, apply to the other. its the free market that businesses already deal with. Unions become what essentially in todays market would be defined as an employee-owned contracting business. But yeah, most unions WOULD lose power, since they cant flex the monpoly muscle they relied on before. And some labor pools would end up screwed, but like I said before, this is a natural correction that just shows the union over inflated that pool in the first place.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Train
and the "good unions" you guys keep reminding us of will do just fine after the NLA is revised, so I dont know why you keep fighting it. Kill the room for abuse, and maybe the poll in this thread wouldnt be so lopsided to the bad.

If one person walks past the bank vault without taking money, they doesnt mean the door should be left opened.

Let us hope that it is revised in such a way where the balance in power is not tipped too much the other direction. People fear that possibility which is why they fight it. It is much easier to take power away from organizations which defend the little people than it is to grant it to them. Otherwise, I am all for updating rules and policies which adapt to the times and such.

You act like its some sort of complex forumula with tons of rules.

Its very simple, treat unions EXACTLY the same as any other business. Then you dont have to worry about "balance", any rules that apply to one, apply to the other. its the free market that businesses already deal with. Unions become what essentially in todays market would be defined as an employee-owned contracting business. But yeah, most unions WOULD lose power, since they cant flex the monpoly muscle they relied on before. And some labor pools would end up screwed, but like I said before, this is a natural correction that just shows the union over inflated that pool in the first place.

Sigh...look man. It just isn't that simple. The idea of what some people consider a free market is not always some sort of god send. It has it's advantages. It has it's flaws. It has its loopholes. These loopholes are often abused too. The idea of how a free market is supposed to work is a grand thing, but the reality can be quite different sometimes due to a lot of crooked and greedy people. It all boils down to the people who are running the show, how greedy they are, and how much power they obtain. If the free market alone worked as well as it should then most of the unions would never have been formed in the first place. People took advantage of and abused the freedom they were given so people who were handed the short end of the stick gathered together to keep things under control.

Now, does that mean that some rules shouldn't be changed? No. However, one really needs to be careful. If it were so simple then it would have been solved a long time ago but it just isn't. It is a balance in power and that balance is delicate. Not to mention that certain changes are not always easily changed again if they do not work out as intended. That is nothing to take lightly. This is about money and rights. This is about what is and isn't fair which is completely subjective in itself. It is anything but easy.

Also, Unions are not a business. While certain rules which work out well for businesses may also work out well for unions, not all of them work that way. The goal of a union is not supposed to be to make as much profit as possible. It is supposed to be about ensuring protection and fair treatment.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well don't you think it's a bit unfair to label all unions as "leeches" based just on your experience with MTA?

I can. And yes, they're bureaucratic, obnoxious, wheedling, whining, carping, mischief making, leeching, unionized, government--approved thuggery of 21st century America.

 

[theeedude]

I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

They also can't stop the union from popping the tires of their cars, intimdating them and verbally and physically attacking them either, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

They also can't stop the union from popping the tires of their cars, intimdating them and verbally and physically attacking them either, but that doesn't make it right.

I don't see that happening at Walmart.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

They also can't stop the union from popping the tires of their cars, intimdating them and verbally and physically attacking them either, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm pretty sure all of those things are illegal regardless of who's doing them, actually.

Also, please use the spell checker that comes with Firefox...

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

They also can't stop the union from popping the tires of their cars, intimdating them and verbally and physically attacking them either, but that doesn't make it right.

I don't see that happening at Walmart.

I haven't seen a walmart strike, but I have seen a firestone strike and they threw down improvised caltrops (three nails bent together) in all the roads into the place. Nevermind the fact that not everyone who works there is union (management) and if they didn't go they would be fired.

The police were called but they did nothing because most people in this town love unions.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
....Also, Unions are not a business...

uhh yes they are. If its not a non-profit org, its a business, I dont care how you slice it. A union is a bunch of people out to make money, how is that ANY difference than a corporation? You cant seperate the two just because a bunch of socialists succeeded in doing so 100 years ago and then further succeeded in making it a third rail issue to protect thier status.

If you think taking monopolistic powers from unions is wrong, then how can you say there is a such thing as a "good union" ?? Theres a REASON theres such a stigma attached to unions, and its because the MAJORITY of them abuse thier powers. Powers that are supposed to be illegal in the first place.

The only people defending unions these days are the ones who were brought up in them, and have been subjected to the years of propaganda they put out. they are either very altruistic or are afraid their pay has been inflated and dont want to give it up.

 

[Train]

some more interesting studies on the disastrous effects unions have had on america. Interesting points bolded:

LABOR LAW REFORM / STUDIES
NLPC Study: Union Monopolies Cost Economy Trillions
Union monopolies in manufacturing, transportation, and other industries have cost American workers some $50 TRILLION over the past six decades, according to a new study published by the Nat'l Legal & Pol'y Ctr. and the John M. Olin Inst. for Employment Practice & Pol'y at Geo. Mason Univ.
Written by Ohio Univ. professors Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, the study is entitled Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited. It's available on NLPC's website: http://www.nlpc.org/olap/lrev/economy.pdf. According to Vedder and Gallaway, union labor monopolies in manufacturing, transportation, mining, and construction have decimated employment in those industries, increased the supply of employment in less unionized fields, and lowered their wage growth.

For instance, the rate of job growth in such low union-density industries as retail and services from 1983 to 2000 was more than twice that of highly unionized industries like manufacturing. Those union-monopolized industries lost about ten million new jobs compared to their less unionized counterparts. Then, demonstrating the impact of labor monopolies on income growth, Vedder and Gallaway show that for every 1% increase in union density, per-capita income growth falls 1.24%. Thus, if all states had the same union density rate as North Carolina's, the lowest in country, their income growth would have been about 17% higher than it really was. Poorest of all was Michigan, where per-capita income would be nearly $6,000, or 21% higher, than today if that state's unionization rate was equal to that of North Carolina. The cumulative effects of union labor monopolies dating back to the 1930s have reduced the total national income by more than $50 trillion, Vedder and Gallaway conclude.

The professors go on to highlight the disastrous effects of union monopolies in the steel and mining industries. After U.S. Steel granted monopoly bargaining rights to the Steelworkers in 1937, for instance, manhours worked plummeted by 51% in just over one year. In coal, the United Mine Workers were already the largest union in the country before the 1930s. Due to excessively pro-union laws passed during the so-called New Deal, UMW president John L. Lewis gained an even greater share of the mining labor force. Ironically, however, that labor force began its long decline, from 471,000 in 1937, to 150,000 when Lewis gave up his UMW presidency in 1960. By 1999, only 70,000 production workers were left in coal mining, barely one-tenth of the jobs number in 1919, when Lewis first assumed the UMW presidency.

"It breaks new ground," stated Investor's Business Daily in profiling the study. "Surprisingly little has been written about the effects of unions on the economy as a whole, or on how unions distort market activity.? NLPC President Peter Flaherty said "America continues to suffer, in terms of lost jobs, wages, and wealth, because of poor policy decisions made decades ago. NLPC help put this study together so that today's policy makers would be aware of the true costs that labor unions impose on our economy.? [IBD 6/11/02]

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

They also can't stop the union from popping the tires of their cars, intimdating them and verbally and physically attacking them either, but that doesn't make it right.

I don't see that happening at Walmart.

But unions are fighting to prevent secret balloting when trying to unionize businesses such as Walmart. What possible reason could they have for opposing employees having the privacy to vote their desires on a secret ballot other than intimidation?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't think they should be given special protections or privileges, however I am not against groups of people bargaining collectively if they want to. I am against them trying to get exclusive rights to work at a company at expense of non-union labor, that should be in violation of antitrust laws.

Any company that wishes to hire non Union labor can. What they can't do is force Union labor to work with them.

They also can't stop the union from popping the tires of their cars, intimdating them and verbally and physically attacking them either, but that doesn't make it right.

I don't see that happening at Walmart.

But unions are fighting to prevent secret balloting when trying to unionize businesses such as Walmart. What possible reason could they have for opposing employees having the privacy to vote their desires on a secret ballot other than intimidation?

How many millions do you think was spent on lobbyists to get this absurd law into congress? If I were in a union I'd be pretty pissed off this is where my dues are going.

The WSJ did a a recent article on the dangers of this law:

The Secret Ballot Is a Foundation of Our Democracy
August 15, 2008; Page A14
I agree with George McGovern that the proposed "card-check" legislation is an open invitation to abuse and ought to be opposed by congressional Democrats ("My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots," op-ed, Aug. 8). I would suggest that he think through our whole approach to labor relations law. Current law is an authoritarian assault on the liberty of workers who do not want union representation at all.

The National Labor Relations Act makes a certified union the exclusive representative of all the workers. Those who think that the union costs too much, fails to represent their workplace interests, or engages in political activities they don't support must nevertheless accept its dominion over them. The Right to Work laws of 23 states permit disaffected workers to stop paying dues without being fired, but that is only a second-best remedy.

There is no reason why labor unions must be given monopoly status. Both Democrats and Republicans ought to support reform of the law so that individuals are free to join or quit unions, just as they are free to join or quit churches, clubs, or any other organization.

If unions are beneficial, they will survive without coercing workers who prefer independence.

edit: link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876080507442873.html

That last line is (part of) what I've been saying all along.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Xavier434
....Also, Unions are not a business...

uhh yes they are. If its not a non-profit org, its a business, I dont care how you slice it. A union is a bunch of people out to make money, how is that ANY difference than a corporation? You cant seperate the two just because a bunch of socialists succeeded in doing so 100 years ago and then further succeeded in making it a third rail issue to protect thier status.

If you think taking monopolistic powers from unions is wrong, then how can you say there is a such thing as a "good union" ?? Theres a REASON theres such a stigma attached to unions, and its because the MAJORITY of them abuse thier powers. Powers that are supposed to be illegal in the first place.

The only people defending unions these days are the ones who were brought up in them, and have been subjected to the years of propaganda they put out. they are either very altruistic or are afraid their pay has been inflated and dont want to give it up.

The goal of a union is not to make profit. Your interpretation of that goal is profit which is why you believe that but that is just not the case.

Let me put it really cut and dry. All I want is for the unions to have a good leading edge. The reason why is because it is the business that holds most of the aces in nearly every case. They have the money. They have the power. The people just want to be able to work fairly, get paid fairly, and not have to worry about their job security at every turn regardless of what they do. The goals of a union are to maintain such things to a reasonable degree.

Now, if taking away certain powers from them means that they can still prevent businesses from abusing their "free market" rights then so be it. I have no problem with that, but it needs to exist. Balance needs to exist. In the end, they are all just people trying to get their piece of the pie and no one is ever satisfied with the size of their slice so if you allow anyone to get a larger fork then you are asking for trouble because someone is going to be left without their slice. Believing that this country will be best off by making everything a complete free market is absurd. The idea of free market is very good in concept, but just like socialism it has tons of flaws as a result of greedy and selfish people who always believe that they are right and the other guy is wrong.

I don't support all out socialism or all out free market ideas. I believe a mixture of both is a good thing for this country and that balance needs to constantly be changed and maintained to adjust according with the times. To believe that one is the ultimate good and the other is an ultimate evil is very naive.

 

[Train]

without being specific on any powers.. you seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing.

What powers (be specific) does a union need that a free market can't provide?

Name one.