Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Spot the difference
Message-ID: <2247@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 22:11:55 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2247
Posted: Mon Jan  6 22:11:55 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jan-86 02:30:38 EST
References: <130@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 51
Keywords: company, union, inflammatory, capitalist, socialist
Summary: 

In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) claims:
>
>     Consider the following two statements.
>
>- A worker helps his company make profits.  If he really doesn't like the way
>  the company is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is
>  supporting with them), he can and should quit his job.
>
>- A worker helps his union make profits.  If he really doesn't like the way
>  the union is using those profits (e.g. which political parties it is
>  supporting with them), he can and should quit his job.
>
>     Aside from the obvious word-substitution, I fail to see any difference
>between the above two statements.  Maybe some of you honourable, intellegent,
>knowledgeable, capitalist running dogs out there can help me out.
>
>Happy new year
>--Jamie.

The difference is that in the first instance the worker is objecting
to the use the company is making of money that *it*, the company,
has *rightfully* earned; whereas in the second instance the worker 
is objecting to the use the union is making of money that *he*, the
worker, rightfully earned and was *forced* to hand over to the union.
I'd say that there is an order of magnitude in difference between
the method the company used to obtain its money and the method that
the union used. 

I can't offhand think of any other organization besides the government
that possesses the coercive powers of today's unions when it comes to
extracting money from its subjects. Most people, libertarians excepted,
accept that the government must possess the ability to separate the
citizenry from a  percentage of its earnings. I accept this to
a certain extent. However, there is, in my opinion, a quantum leap
required to extend this ability to **private** organizations. 

What is so special about unions that they should be able to force not
only members but also non-members to give them a chunk of their 
salary? If one agrees with the premise that the unions could
*not* survive without this ability then does this not say something
extremely negative about the trade union movement? Why shouldn't
*individuals* be allowed to decide whether or not their interests 
are truly best served by membership in a union? Is the average person
really so ignorant/uninformed  that he can't be trusted to make this 
decision on his own?

J.B. Robinson, CRD

P.S. Contrary to popular belief (read contrary to a vicious rumour
     that has been promoted by a certain unnamed socialist swine :-),
     I am in no manner, whatsoever, related to Svend Robinson.