What is the problem?
 

I agree on the first. On the second, why isn't the answer that jobs will go to other plants, whether here or abroad, because of the behavior that is irrational? Is this any different in terms of the need for government regulation from any situation where a company or industry behaves irrationally, and feels the sting of Darwin as a result?

What is the problem?
 

is a bankruptcy court breaking union contracts "governemnt intervention?"

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

No. If you explain that to Penske, he'll probably tell you the Constitution was created to protect the rights of all citizens, minorities and majorities.

Which side are you on?
 

Well, uh, yes, that's pretty much right. Some would argue (as I implicitly did) that the process is a bit stacked againts the would-be organizers, and that some employers go beyond what the law permits them to do in fighting unionization efforts.

(In short, I was engaging in a bit of hyperboele. I blame too many viewings of "Norma Rae" as a lad.)

What is the problem?
 

Uh, what about all the entrepreneurial immigrants who came over and started businesses and scratched and worked themselves to the middle class and above?

I'd sooner be branded than carry a fucking union card. My immigrant forebears never got in spitting distance of a union. I think a lot of older people would get very offended at your generalization there. Some people got ahead in life by having ingenuity and working and taking some risks.

What is the problem?
 

It seems like the NLRA is gov't intervention.

My impression is that a lot of cost is healthcare and pensions (i.e., past promises), not wages. I was reading somewhere (somewhere NORMAL, like the Economist or Yahoo news, or something) that blue collar workers, and I think even the lower levels of white collar workers, have experienced, in real terms, a decline in wages not only over the near term but also over the last 30+ years (from sometime in the 70s). I don't know if the "start date" for the comparison was timed to coincide with some particular year in the stagflation era, such that it would make now look particularly bad (whereas a year later or earlier would not produce so dramatic a result), but it was interesting.

The article did point out, and I agree, that you get more bang for your buck on a lot of products nowadays -- like, a car that costs the same in real terms would be safer/more reliable/have more features. But, the lack of growth for lower-wage workers, where higher-wage workers have been experiencing significant growth in real terms, does highlight that there is a gap between haves and have-nots. I personally think that such a situation is not politically sustainable unless the lower class a real lower class of peasants with very low expectations, and I don't think we can get there from here.

What is the problem?
 

More interesting and individualized stories, but not as significant in terms of social development. Unions, and the fear of socialism/communism, linked healthcare and retirement to employment, and with that went a long way toward ensuring a more reasonable standard of living for huge numbers of people.

Middle-class entrepreneurs can't get anywhere unless there are people to buy from them. The whole industrialization/mass production thing had to shift work from individuals and small groups to huge numbers of people working in a single location. We wouldn't be where we are if it weren't for this type of labor --we'd be in the pre-industrial, small shopkeeper era and all have shit-ass standards of living.

What is the problem?
 

Dude, you need to learn a little history. People risked their lives fighting for a decent wage -- and were shot by state militias, federal troops, Pinkerton goons, etc. not just for asking for more money, but because they had the nerve to not want to take a pay cut.

The problems with unions today shouldn't blind you to the fact that their efforts made it possible for the working class to become middle class.

What is the problem?
 

It wasn't before, but post BARF, it's an abuse of the judicial process by big business interests exercising remedies denied ordinary citizens.

What is the problem?
 

Do you really think your PA bar registration is any better? Seriously, each of the 50 states and DC all have laws that prohibit an attorney from one jurisdiction from practicing in another, except under limited circumstances. Isn't that the same sort of barrier to entry as a union card?

I suggest you put the brand on your ass. Less possibility of communicating burns or infection to vital organs.

Which side are you on?
 

The traditional organizing process - filing an RC-petition with the NLRA, scheduling and conducting an election and then negotiating a first contract, is very much tilted towards employers. I can keep that fucker in limbo/litigation for years. Thats why unions are fighting so hard to keep and expand the use of neutrality agreements.

aV

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

Yes, but unlike certain activist judges, the Founders did not see any mystical penumbras emanating from their work.

What is the problem?
 

You're argument is anachronistic,like unions. There is no rationale for any special protection for organised labour anymore. Unfortunately, are markets and then our reactive politicians will have to be schooled in this lesson the hard way. Via competition that kicks our ass. Outsourcing. I applaud every union job lost to outsourcing to India and China and Latin America. These union socialist fucks will reap what they sow.

Vote no on Proposition 73
 

I believe in the UMC and natural rights of all men.

What is the problem?
 

2.