Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Spot the difference Message-ID: <2906@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 10:19:11 EST Article-I.D.: watcgl.2906 Posted: Tue Jan 7 10:19:11 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 05:03:12 EST References: <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2247@hcrvx2.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 77 > In article <130@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) claims: > > > >--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. One might say that the worker is forced to pay the union because they have a lock on jobs (or access to same within any one organization), in the same way that the worker is forced to pay the company (letting the company share in the fruits of his/her labour) because they have a lock on the other resources necessary to have the company in the first place. > > 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. Why? At least as long as membership in the private organization is voluntary? > > 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? You can make all the same arguments about government - how long would it exist if taxes were completely voluntary (not that I necessarily think it would be a bad way to run the tax system)? Does this not say the same negative thing about governments? > > J.B. Robinson, CRD Personally I like the (already made by another poster) analogy of worker:union as stockholder:company . What can one stockholder do if the company decides to contribute money to a cause they disagree with - exactly the same thing a worker can do if the union does the same. One might also say that the worker is better off vis a vis the union than the stockholder is wrt the compnay since everyone is a minority "stockholder" in the union whereas if someone holds a majority of stock in a company there is very little the minority stockholders can do to influence company opinion. I also agree with the poster (Brad I think) who complained about political contributions. No one except private individuals or organizations whose sole purpose is of a political nature should be allowed to make political contributions (and there should be some reasonable limit set on the size) or indulge in political activities. john chapman -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.