Obama said to withdraw from Iraq--McCain said to Surge!!!

[Strauss]

I reserve the right to read the outlandishly deceptive posts you make because it's not smart to not know what is going on around you.

Now that has got to be the funniest thing I've read on this Forum. Hello, your too late.

 

[Fox Mulder]

BTW, the Atty General has found there are no crimes for prosecution as a result of her behavior.

This part is what is so frustrating about debating some people. I don't think he really understands the Justice Department has the same obligation not to prosecute a crime against a person they don't believe there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) against. Or more likely, he believes the Constitution rights of Bush Admin people should be suspended for the greater liberal good!

 

[Fox Mulder]

I reserve the right to read the outlandishly deceptive posts you make because it's not smart to not know what is going on around you.

Yes--you do have that right--like I have the right to respond to any post I think contains nothing but conjecture, speculation, and outright mistatements of fact and law. What concerns me most in these debates is not the disparagement of Bush, I could care less about any one individual, but the damage its doing to the office of the president and to the Constitution's doctrine of separation of powers. Hysterical liberals all over this country, because they can't stand Bush, have attempted to neuter the Constitutional powers reserved to the office of the President.

The President has no fucking obligation (nor should he) to do what Democrats in Congress want him to do (or Republicans for that matter). He has an obligation under the Constitution in fact to check the power of the other two branches, not be subservient to it. But that's exaclty what you and others have argued he should do and its complete hypocrisy. Anyone that REALLY is rightly concerned with the Constitution should be very concerned about the attempts to limit Bush's power, which is an attempt to alter the Constitution in an unconstitutional manner (altering the Constitution is to be done by amendment).

 

[Minor Axis]

MoveOn.org.

I'm not telling you guys anymore, I don't use MoveOn.org for reference. (sigh).

I've been through this before with hwsnbn and I'm getting fatigued with the drama in this forum, 100% of it coming from you two. I'll be here, but no longer jumping through your hoops. I'll make my statements, you can yell "BS", you can push your agenda and I'll yell "BS" at appropriate times. Later...

s doing to the office of the president and to the Constitution's doctrine of separation of powers.[/b] Hysterical liberals all over this country, because they can't stand Bush, have attempted to neuter the Constitutional powers reserved to the office of the President.

Rave on, dude.

 

[Strauss]

I'm not telling you guys anymore, I don't use MoveOn.org for reference. (sigh).

I've been through this before with hwsnbn and I'm getting fatigued with the drama in this forum, 100% of it coming from you two. I'll be here, but no longer jumping through your hoops. I'll make my statements, you can yell "BS", you can push your agenda and I'll yell "BS" at appropriate times. Later...

(sigh) But just about everything you post can be found on MoveOn.org talking points.

(sigh)There is a drama queen here but it isn't Mulder or I.

(sigh)I prefer not to respond to your posts until you post something with A). an original thought, or B). specific statements of facts not mealy generalities.

 

[Minor Axis]

(sigh)I prefer not to respond to your posts until you post something with A). an original thought, or B). specific statements of facts not mealy generalities.

And because you think I rarely do that, I'll be looking forward to not hearing from you, promise?

 

[Strauss]

And because you think I rarely do that, I'll be looking forward to not hearing from you.

Not as much as look forward to not responding......unless it something really really stupid.

 

[Minor Axis]

Not as much as look forward to not responding......unless it something really really stupid.

That does not sound very convincing...

 

[Fox Mulder]

I'm not telling you guys anymore, I don't use MoveOn.org for reference. (sigh).

I've been through this before with hwsnbn and I'm getting fatigued with the drama in this forum, 100% of it coming from you two. I'll be here, but no longer jumping through your hoops. I'll make my statements, you can yell "BS", you can push your agenda and I'll yell "BS" at appropriate times. Later...



Rave on, dude.

Dude--go look at the threads you start--you are not interested in true debate, but solely in an agenda (in fact, the ones I started on Obama were in direct response to the drivel you post). And your agenda is entirely self-motivated--your agenda is driven by your own financial interest. I do much better with liberals in office financially--the liberal is the lawyers friend--any lawyer will tell you that. So my agenda is not driven by my financial interests, whereas yours is entirely driven by it.

 

[Minor Axis]

So my agenda is not driven by my financial interests, whereas yours is entirely driven by it.

No your motives are driven by a combination of your financial and partisan moral standards, which is your right to do. It's your opinion, fine. Just don't try to make this into a self righteous position as if you have cornered truth and integrity. It's your version of the "world according to mulder".

I don't deny, I have my version of the world too. I have an agenda, but my agenda is directed "for" the working class and middle class people in this country. Yours is directed towards "corporations" which you make abundantly clear in practically every post you make. You are free to do so. But you guys who are defending one of the most disastrous deceitful Presidencies in our life time, just don't have any credibility to be the bearers of moral standards. That's my opinion.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I don't deny, I have my version of the world too. I have an agenda, but my agenda is directed "for" the working class and middle class people in this country. Yours is directed towards "corporations" which you make abundantly clear in practically every post you make.

No--that's totally inaccurate because you don't understand what you read (or most of the time what you post). I defend economic reality--you defend your self interests. If you were a business owner as oppossed to a union employee, you'd have the exact opposite viewpoint. My views are based on the economic fact--that is that unions cause a loss of jobs for the working class and a lower overall standard of living for American workers--unions help only those that are members of the unions, which is a very small percentage of the working class. I've told you that you've benefited at the expense of the American work force. That's an economic fact. You can rationalize it all you want. So I don't defend corporations, I defend a strong economy and what we need to foster a strong economy.

If you need any more proof then the last 2000 years, look to China--up until the 70s they were a completely a country of a worker's union--no free enterprise--they had a better than a 50% poverty rate. They moved to a free enterprise economic system and now they have a 12% (or thereabouts) poverty. And guess what--some Chinese citizens got filthy rich in the process because that's how capitalims works. That's the part you (and most liberals) don't like--the fact that some people get rich in a capitalistic system even though most of the population also benefits--its class envy that you can't get over even though every fact leads to the same conclusion--its the best system in the world to keep the most people with the highest standards of living.

What you lobby for is commumism/socialism--you have expressly stated you believe in forcing people to give you (and others) a bigger piece of the pie--that's communism my friend. A union is a communist organizaton. Go to the Communist party's web site and that's all they talk about--the unions in America and how to make them stronger.

Now--I don't really care if you support communism--that's your right--but don't rationalize it as you supporting the working class--you could care less about the working class--call it what it is--all you care about is that your income is as high as possible regardless of what that does to anyone else in the country.

So let's get it straight--I support a free enterprise system--you support a communist system--its that simple.

You are free to do so. But you guys who are defending one of the most disastrous deceitful Presidencies in our life time, just don't have any credibility to be the bearers of moral standards. That's my opinion.

I've told you over and over I am concerned with what is being done with the office of the President not with Bush. Even assuming that you are correct, the answer is not weakening the office of the President because that's a violation of the Constitution. Its like executing the mother of the murderer because she gave birth to him. But then you don't understand enough of the Constitution to even know what you are arguing for--you simply regurgitate the talking points your union distributes to you in pamphlets and assume its correct.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

No--that's totally inaccurate because you don't understand what you read (or most of the time what you post). I defend economic reality--you defend your self interests. If you were a business owner as oppossed to a union employee, you'd have the exact opposite viewpoint. My views are based on the economic fact--that is that unions cause a loss of jobs for the working class and a lower overall standard of living for American workers--unions help only those that are members of the unions, which is a very small percentage of the working class. I've told you that you've benefited at the expense of the American work force. That's an economic fact. You can rationalize it all you want. So I don't defend corporations, I defend a strong economy and what we need to foster a strong economy.

If you need any more proof then the last 2000 years, look to China--up until the 70s they were a completely a country of a worker's union--no free enterprise--they had a better than a 50% poverty rate. They moved to a free enterprise economic system and now they have a 12% (or thereabouts) poverty. And guess what--some Chinese citizens got filthy rich in the process because that's how capitalims works. That's the part you (and most liberals) don't like--the fact that some people get rich in a capitalistic system even though most of the population also benefits--its class envy that you can't get over even though every fact leads to the same conclusion--its the best system in the world to keep the most people with the highest standards of living.

What you lobby for is commumism/socialism--you have expressly stated you believe in forcing people to give you (and others) a bigger piece of the pie--that's communism my friend. A union is a communist organizaton. Go to the Communist party's web site and that's all they talk about--the unions in America and how to make them stronger.

Now--I don't really care if you support communism--that's your right--but don't rationalize it as you supporting the working class--you could care less about the working class--call it what it is--all you care about is that your income is as high as possible regardless of what that does to anyone else in the country.

So let's get it straight--I support a free enterprise system--you support a communist system--its that simple.



I've told you over and over I am concerned with what is being done with the office of the President not with Bush. Even assuming that you are correct, the answer is not weakening the office of the President because that's a violation of the Constitution. Its like executing the mother of the murderer because she gave birth to him. But then you don't understand enough of the Constitution to even know what you are arguing for--you simply regurgitate the talking points your union distributes to you in pamphlets and assume its correct.

1. I know you're a member of our fantastic legal system of some sort...However the very Constitution you use to support your point, just so happens to support an Americans ability to organize

2. FACT, and I'm not theorizing, I am in the corporate world so I don't have to guess or listen to Rush or Sean Hannity to get this information, if companies had been doing what they were supposed to do when unions were established, then unions would never have been developed, and that's a fact.

Over the years they have probably been abused to extort more and more money from large corporations, but in the beginning they were used to get fair treatment and safer work environments, and we owe that to the American worker, and I'm sorry Fox, but if you don't honestly think we have an obligation to protect, insure and competively compensate our workers then you're a tyrant and a typical snob, you think the American dream is only for the wealthy and that means those of us who have always had money

MOST unions aren't asking for anything more than a piece of the pie they have coming to them, and I know fro mfirst hand experience......CEO's don't earn 30 million dollars a year

The middle class has always been the backbone of this country, and I say that knowing that I have grown up upper class, and have never been middle class. Them wanting a piece of the pie is no worse than people like you wanting to push it further up the ladder, you just simply don't care about anyone who isn't in your tax bracket.

But at least you belong to a church that give money away to the poor poor souls who aren't as fortunate as you (Notice the use of your snob smiley)

 

[Alien Allen]

Gee I guess I missed some good shit lately

Funny stuff

 

[Minor Axis]

I defend economic reality--you defend your self interests.

Your view of economic reality does support your self interests because it is your view of how things should be. Don't sit there I tell this forum you don't defend your self interests. People adopt positions ultimately because they believe in the short or long run, the position benefits them. Don't accuse me of not understanding. I disagree with your analysis and your perspective.

If you believe that abortion is wrong, that corporations should have free reign to do whatever they want, this is your belief and in support of that, you will support candidates or a system that supports your belief. This is voting your self interest.

Are you a lawyer? What if I said lawyers make too damn much, they are parasites on society and they should be restricted because overall they do more harm then good, and their pay should be reduced because they have way too much impact on monetary awards. Now I don't believe that, because lawyers have brought done some heavy duty corporations for irresponsible activities, like poisoning their employees.

So is there any way you'd support a candidate who felt this way and promised to reduce lawyer fees? I don't see it EVER. You will never voluntarily support a politician who had a beef with lawyers and the profession.

If you were a business owner as oppossed to a union employee, you'd have the exact opposite viewpoint.

I can easily say that of you.

My views are based on the economic fact--that is that unions cause a loss of jobs for the working class and a lower overall standard of living for American workers--unions help only those that are members of the unions, which is a very small percentage of the working class. I've told you that you've benefited at the expense of the American work force. That's an economic fact. You can rationalize it all you want. So I don't defend corporations, I defend a strong economy and what we need to foster a strong economy.

Your analysis is wrong. Unions did not pop up in this country because the Communist Party thought it was a good way to go. They appeared because many employers did not treat their employees well. It's as simple as that. I predict if the work environment deteriorates, union membership will increase. You try to blame unions for job exportation overseas, but I don't care if you make $10 an hour in a non-union company or $16.50 in a union shop, the owner of the business in most cases is more than happy to ship that job overseas where employees make $1 per hour union or no union. You can spit and sputter all you want, but it is a fact that many corporations now have leadership in place who no longer have the best interests of the company and their employees at heart. They primary concern is enriching themselves at the expense of all other considerations.

If you need any more proof then the last 2000 years, look to China

Maybe you are too focused on your own agenda. You don't need to lecture me on how wonderful capitalism is. Capitalism is my system of choice, but not unregulated capitalism.

What you lobby for is commumism/socialism--you have expressly stated you believe in forcing people to give you (and others) a bigger piece of the pie--that's communism my friend. A union is a communist organizaton. Go to the Communist party's web site and that's all they talk about--the unions in America and how to make them stronger.

A bigger piece of the pie for workers is not an equal piece of the pie and when it comes to company officers and owners, it never will be equal and workers have never expected it, and I've never advocated it. I got it, you hate unions. Your agenda precludes you from considering alternative forms of your reality. Unions have seniority numbers based on qualified people and they hold elections. Everyone is not equal in the work they do, pay is not equal either. I don't care if you're biased or ignorant, your wrong. Or if you prefer I disagree with you.

So let's get it straight--I support a free enterprise system--you support a communist system--its that simple.

Statements like this make you unworthy of serious debate.

 

[Alien Allen]

so what was this thread about anyway

I forgot

 

[Minor Axis]

MOST unions aren't asking for anything more than a piece of the pie they have coming to them, and I know fro mfirst hand experience......CEO's don't earn 30 million dollars a year

The middle class has always been the backbone of this country, and I say that knowing that I have grown up upper class, and have never been middle class. Them wanting a piece of the pie is no worse than people like you wanting to push it further up the ladder, you just simply don't care about anyone who isn't in your tax bracket.

:thumbup on your post.


Many CEOs today think they DESERVE to be rich because they are in the EGO ZONE. The human brain when flush with success can do funny things to one's perception.

 

[Fox Mulder]

1. I know you're a member of our fantastic legal system of some sort...However the very Constitution you use to support your point, just so happens to support an Americans ability to organize

The Constitution also allows communist party candidate to run for office and get elected, that doesn't mean that's a good thing for the country. I never said unions weren't legal entities, I said they are communist entities.

And I don't have any problem at all with people organzing--its the unfair bargaining advantage they are given by politicians who are getting millions of dollars from unions to give them that unfair advantage.

2. FACT, and I'm not theorizing, I am in the corporate world so I don't have to guess or listen to Rush or Sean Hannity to get this information, if companies had been doing what they were supposed to do when unions were established, then unions would never have been developed, and that's a fact.

Not relevant to my points.

Over the years they have probably been abused to extort more and more money from large corporations, but in the beginning they were used to get fair treatment and safer work environments, and we owe that to the American worker, and I'm sorry Fox, but if you don't honestly think we have an obligation to protect, insure and competively compensate our workers then you're a tyrant and a typical snob, you think the American dream is only for the wealthy and that means those of us who have always had money

Its precisely because I believe workers should be competetively compensated that I disagree with the concept of unions. You are ASSUMING that unions would raise the wages of American workers when it fact they do the opposite (except for the small few in the unions). The point is that if all workers in the country were unionized we would have a commmunist economic system and the standard of living for the entire country would resemble the Soviet Union.

Do me a favor--go to CPUSA Online -

and tell me what you see? You see throughout that site support for the AFL-CIO and organizing workers against evil corporations. Years ago a communist leader said the Soviet Union did not have to go to war with America, that it would bring it down from within. Well, that's exacly what will happen if unions were allowed to expand to include all of the workers in the country.

Bottom line is its a communist organization and structure--that's a fact.

MOST unions aren't asking for anything more than a piece of the pie they have coming to them, and I know fro mfirst hand experience......CEO's don't earn 30 million dollars a year

The middle class has always been the backbone of this country, and I say that knowing that I have grown up upper class, and have never been middle class. Them wanting a piece of the pie is no worse than people like you wanting to push it further up the ladder, you just simply don't care about anyone who isn't in your tax bracket.

But at least you belong to a church that give money away to the poor poor souls who aren't as fortunate as you (Notice the use of your snob smiley)

Yes, the middle class is the backbone and harmed the most by unions. Don't kid yourself--unions are not helping the poor, they are hurting the poor and the middle class. Your assumption is that unions are helping the middle class and that is just flat out an economically incorect assumption. Go to any economic think tank and you'll see exactly article like this:

Labor Unions, by Morgan O. Reynolds: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty

Many unions have won higher wages and better working conditions for their members. In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available. That second effect is because of the basic law of demand: if unions successfully raise the price of labor, employers will purchase less of it. Thus, unions are the major anticompetitive force in labor markets. Their gains come at the expense of consumers, nonunion workers, the jobless, and owners of corporations.

According to Harvard economists Richard Freeman and James Medoff, who look favorably on unions, "Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels." The power that unions have to fix high prices for their labor rests on legal privileges and immunities that they get from government, both by statute and by nonenforcement of other laws. The purpose is to restrict others from working for lower wages. As anti-union economist Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1922, "The long and short of trade union rights is in fact the right to proceed against the strikebreaker with primitive violence."

So stop assuming that I oppose unions because I don't care about the working class--I am the owrking class as well as most everyone I know. And anyone that takes the time to really educate themselves about economics will understand that it is impossible to change the laws of economics with unions. All they do is allow some people (like Minor) to gain higher wages than which he entitled at the expense of the working class, the poor, and consumers. And of course he is going to vehemently protect his own self interest at the expense of others.

 

[Fox Mulder]

:thumbup on your post.


Many CEOs today think they DESERVE to be rich because they are in the EGO ZONE. The human brain when flush with success can do funny things to one's perception.

Unlike you (and the unions)--CEOs are adding jobs to the economy--they are being hired by a board of directors whose main goal is to raise the profits of the corporation--they aren't going to pay someone more than they think they are worth--good CEOs return many times their salaries in corporate profits and health. Get this "deserve" crap out of your head. What makes you think you deserve what you are getting paid? :confused No one deserves anymore than what the market will bear. Most us receive the pay we are able to secure by free negotiation. The additional pay you are receiving above what your market worth is, is being taken from someone else--someone else is suffering to allow you a wage above the prevailing rate and above what you could freely bargain for with your employer--again that's an economic fact. You can rationalize it all you want, but that the reality of it. Just live with it and accept what you are a part of.

 

[Fox Mulder]

By the way, for those of you who are unaware of just how anti-American unions are, read this (it will surprise a lot of you who don't know this):

Labor Unions, by Morgan O. Reynolds: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty

Those unfamiliar with labor law may be surprised by the privileges that U.S. unions enjoy. The list is long. Labor cartels are immune from taxation and from antitrust laws. Companies are legally compelled to bargain with unions in "good faith." This innocent-sounding term is interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board to suppress such practices as Boulwarism, named for a former General Electric personnel director. To shorten the collective bargaining process, Lemuel Boulware communicated the "reasonableness" of GE's wage offer directly to employees, shareholders, and the public. Unions also can force companies to make their property available for union use.

Once the government ratifies a union's position as representing a group of workers, it represents them exclusively, whether particular employees want collective representation or not. Also, union officials can force compulsory union dues from employees, members and nonmembers alike, as a condition of keeping their jobs. Unions often use these funds for political purposes—political campaigns and voter registration, for example—unrelated to collective bargaining or to employee grievances. Unions are relatively immune from payment of tort damages for injuries inflicted in labor disputes, from federal court injunctions, and from many state laws under the "federal preemption" doctrine. Sums up Nobel Laureate Friedrich A. Hayek: "We have now reached a state where [unions] have become uniquely privileged institutions to which the general rules of law do not apply."

Labor unions cannot prosper in a competitive environment. Like other successful cartels, they depend on government patronage and protection. Worker cartels grew in surges during the two world wars and the Great Depression of the thirties. Federal interventions—the Railway Act of 1926 (amended in 1934), the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the Walsh-Healy Act of 1936, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, various War Labor Boards, and the Kennedy administration's encouragement of public-sector unionism in 1962—all added to unions' monopoly power.

A 1989 unionization rate of 35 percent in the public sector versus 12 percent in the private sector further demonstrates that unions do best in heavily regulated, monopolistic environments.

After nearly sixty years of government encouragement and protection of unions, what have been the economic consequences? A 1985 survey by H. Gregg Lewis of two hundred economic studies concluded that unions caused their members' wages to be, on average, 14 to 15 percent higher than wages of similarly skilled nonunion workers. Other economists—Harvard's Freeman and Medoff, and Peter Linneman and Michael Wachter of the University of Pennsylvania—claim that the union premium was 20 to 30 percent or higher during the eighties.

The wage premium varies by industry. Unions representing garment workers, textile workers, white-collar government workers, and teachers seem to have little impact on wages. But wages of unionized mine workers, building trades people, airline pilots, merchant seamen, postal workers, teamsters, rail workers, and auto and steel workers exceed wages of similarly skilled nonunion employees by 25 percent or more.

The wage advantage enjoyed by union members results from two factors. First, monopoly unions raise wages above competitive levels. Second, nonunion wages fall because workers priced out of jobs by high union wages move into the nonunion sector and bid down wages there. Thus, some of the gains to union members come at the expense of those who must shift to lower-paying or less desirable jobs or go unemployed.

Despite considerable rhetoric to the contrary, unions have blocked the economic advance of blacks, women, and other minorities. That is because another of their functions, once they have raised wages above competitive levels, is to ration the jobs that remain. And since they are monopolies, unions can indulge the prejudices of their leaders or members without the economic penalties that people in the competitive sector must face. In indulging those prejudices, unions have established a sordid history of racist and sexist practices.

Economist Ray Marshall, although a prounion secretary of labor under President Jimmy Carter, made his academic reputation by documenting how unions excluded blacks from membership in the thirties and forties (see sidebar). Marshall also wrote of incidents in which union members assaulted black workers hired to replace them during strikes. During the 1911 strike against the Illinois Central, noted Marshall, whites killed two black strikebreakers and wounded three others at McComb, Mississippi. He also noted that white strikers killed ten black firemen in 1911 because the New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railroad had granted them equal seniority. Not surprisingly, therefore, black leader Booker T. Washington opposed unions all his life, and W. E. B. DuBois called unions the greatest enemy of the black working class. Another interesting fact: the "union label" was started in the 1880s to proclaim that a product was made by white rather than yellow (Chinese) hands. More generally, union wage rates, union-backed requirements for a license to practice various occupations, and union-backed labor regulations like the minimum wage law and the Davis-Bacon Act continue to reduce opportunities for black youths, females, and other minorities.

The monopoly success of private-sector unions, however, has brought their decline. The silent, steady forces of the marketplace continually undermine them. Linneman and Wachter, along with economist William Carter, found that the rising union wage premium was responsible for up to 64 percent of the decline in unions' share of employment in the last twenty years. The average union wage premium for railroad workers over similarly skilled nonrailroad workers, for example, increased from 32 percent to 50 percent between 1973 and 1987; at the same time, employment on railroads declined from 520,000 to 249,000. Increased wage premiums also caused declines in union employment in construction, manufacturing, and communications. As Rutgers economist Leo Troy concludes, "Over time, competitive markets repeal the legal protection bestowed by governments on unions and collective bargaining."

The degree of union representation of workers has declined in all private industries in the United States in recent decades. A major reason is that employees do not like unions. According to a Louis Harris poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO in 1984, only one in three U.S. employees would vote for union representation in a secret ballot election. The Harris poll found, as have other surveys, that nonunion employees, relative to union workers, are more satisfied with job security, recognition of job performance, and participation in decisions that affect their jobs. And the U.S. economy's evolution toward smaller companies, the South and West, higher-technology products, and more professional and technical personnel continues to erode union membership.

In the United States union membership in the private sector peaked at 17 million in 1970 and had fallen to 10.5 million by 1989. Moreover, the annual decline is accelerating. Barring new legislation, such as a recent congressional proposal to ban the hiring of nonunion replacement workers, private-sector membership will fall from 12 percent to about 7 percent by the year 2000, about the same percentage as a hundred years earlier. [Editor's note: this prediction was made in 1992.] While the unionization rate in government jobs may decline slightly from 35 percent, public-sector unions are on schedule to claim an absolute majority of union members a few years after the year 2000, thereby transforming an historically private-sector labor movement into a primarily government one. Asked in the twenties what organized labor wanted, union leader Samuel Gompers answered, "More." Today's union leader would probably answer, "More government." That answer further exposes the deep, permanent conflict between union members and workers in general that inevitably arises when the first group is paid monopoly wage rates.

BTW--the biggest problem as I have said is not with private unions but with govenment unions--from above:

While the unionization rate in government jobs may decline slightly from 35 percent, public-sector unions are on schedule to claim an absolute majority of union members a few years after the year 2000, thereby transforming an historically private-sector labor movement into a primarily government one.

As the economy move to more and more government jobs, the economy becomes less and less competetive. So government unions, if allowed to continue to flourish, will ultimately transmutate a free market economy to a communist economy because governments (and unions) are communist organizations no matter how you look at it.

 

[dazner]

I was going to jump in on this discussion but after seeing all that you guys quote and type I just got lazy