Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: The Sub-Minimum Wage Again - (nf) Message-ID: <22400002@ea.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Sep-84 15:10:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.22400002 Posted: Mon Sep 3 15:10:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Sep-84 04:54:28 EDT References: <476@tty3b.UUCP> Lines: 67 Nf-ID: #R:tty3b:-47600:ea:22400002:000:3374 Nf-From: ea!mwm Sep 3 14:10:00 1984 #R:tty3b:-47600:ea:22400002:000:3374 ea!mwm Sep 3 14:10:00 1984 Hi again, Mike. > From: andree@uokvax.UUCP > >Sorry, but the SU does have a union. It's called the Communist Party. You > >don't have to be a member to work (but you do have to vote!), but you can't > >organize into another union (even if you're in another country). > > > >It's the kind of union that should make every union lovers heart warm. It > >runs the companies, so it sets wages, working hours, and benies. Of course, > >it also runs the country, but that's a detail. The Perfect Union. > > This, of course, is the same kind of red-baiting that trade unionists have learned > to expect from the right wing. Analyze the impeccable logic here: you are for > trade unions; the Soviet Union has a make-believe trade union; therefore, you are > for this make-believe trade union. QED. Would you please point out where I (yes, that was me) used that logic? Nowhere do I see anything that says that you (or anyone else) was for the Communist Party. What I did do was state that the Communist Party has attributes that every Union lover would like. Do you deny that you wouldn't like a union that ran the companies, set wages, etc? > The irony is that the trade union movement is probably one of the strongest > bastions of anti-communism. The leadership in many unions today are the same > people who presided over the purges of communists from the unions after WW II. I'm not familiar with that. Could you provide details? It's easy to believe, though; denying people access to jobs based on political believes would fit right in with most union actions. > I hope that it is self-evident that one can defend the rights of workers to > organize without having to defend the distortion of that by the Soviet Union. Yup, it's self-evident. I hope it's equally self-evident that one can attack closed shop laws & people who assault other people without attacking the rights of workers to organize. > Rhetoric is not reality, and calling an organization a free union does not make > it one. Once again, could you point out where I used the word "free?" I stated that Communist Party was a union. I still stand by that statement. It definitely isn't free - and is much farther from freedom than any union I know of in the US. I would, though, like to see an example of a "free" union. I have never attacked anyones right to organize. I have attacked closed shop laws (which violate peoples right to work), and the unions bad habit of assaulting people who are willing to work without union permits [mjk, of course, doesn't like the police protecting those people, or, as he put it, "protecting the rights of management to hire people during a strike" (that's a paraphrase).] Workers *should* be able to organize. They should *not* be allowed to force others into their union, or to keep others from working. Likewise, I have never attacked the Russian people (the lunatics that run the country, yes. Think of a crazier version of RR running a country where he could appoint people & in general run the country without having to worry about losing power. Now, doesn't *that* scare you?) or the communist party in America. I don't think a person should discriminated against on the basis of religion or politics - unless they try to cram them down my throat. Both Liberals and Christians have a bad habit of that, so I bitch about those practices.