No, if you think you need union help and you don't join then you're a fool.
You label unions as selfish aresholes, but you don't think that employers should be able to just fire anyone at a whim. But can't you see that without the threat that unions wouldn't stand for it, the government would happily remove all employment law that benefits the worker over the employer.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:45, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

It's not a black and white argument.
There are unions that work perfectly well without striking at the drop of a hat, for instance. Unions do, as you point out, exist to look after their member's interest. The problem is when they do it to the direct detriment of everyone apart from their members.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:49, Reply)

I would say that the people who are meant to consider every side of the argument
would be the government, the union is only meant to consider one side.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:52, Reply)

so, following that logic, you think then it's acceptable for the RMT to take more public money for tube drivers
leaving, say, UNISON unable to get more for nurses or teachers, simply because a tube strike is a more powerful driver, because of the financial damage it does to the economy?

There's only a fixed amount of money. Do you think it's acceptable by the union ethos to fuck over others in the same position simply because they, effectively, have a bigger threatning sword?

And before you say that's the governments problem to find more money - In an ideal world, you'd be entirely correct, but we aren't in an ideal world - you totally accept that when it comes to competition/monopoly of corporations so presumely you accept that here, too?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:00, Reply)

I don't accept it when it comes to corporations, so that's your argument kicked into a hat.
We're coming at this from different sides, I know you're a lot more right wing that me, certainly when it comes to economics, so it's not surprising we're disagreeing about this.

The government should, in an ideal world, regulate corporations to ensure proper competition (energy suppliers is a good example where I think stronger regulation is needed) and they should negotiate with the unions to ensure that the unions don't use their powers unfairly.

The difference here is that I don't believe the unions are using their powers unfairly, you do, and we aren't going to resolve that, so we might as well stop.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:05, Reply)

Sorry, I meant you accept it happens
not that you accept it's fair. You do accept it happens, you just said so down there.

But otherwise, yes, spot on. Anyway, Chompy's played the Godwin card, so we can shake hands and settle down with our pints. Well played all round.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:08, Reply)

Good game.

(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:09, Reply)