SEARCH
Ron Paul Crosses Writers’ Picket Line |
|
Who’s sticking up for striking writers? Not presidential candidate Ron Paul, the Republican congressman from Texas.
Paul became the first presidential candidate to cross the picket line of the Writers Guild yesterday when he appeared on ABC’s “The View.”
The television writers have been on strike since Nov. 5, seeking a fair share of revenue from online broadcasts, DVDs and other electronic formats. The union returned to the bargaining table yesterday in the continuing effort to achieve a fair contract. While so far no other Republican candidate has crossed a picket line, none has made a significant effort to support striking workers this year.
Other 2008 presidential candidates have taken a different approach: They’ve honored the writers’ picket line, and some have walked with workers on strike. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and his wife Elizabeth canceled appearances on “The View” to honor the picket line, as did Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was scheduled to appear on the show today. The Democratic National Committee last week announced it would cancel a planned Dec. 10 debate due to a potential strike by ABC News writers and staff. Both Obama and John Edwards marched alongside striking hotel workers in Chicago earlier this year, and all Democratic candidates except Mike Gravel issued statements in support of the 73,000 striking workers at General Motors in September.
This year, Paul voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to exercise their freedom to form a union.
All major Democratic presidential candidates support the Employee Free Choice Act, while the Republican candidates have either voted against it, expressed opposition to it or not taken a position.
29 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
it just goes to show. Democrats as a whole support working people, Republicans do not. Where is Hillary during the strikes?
I think that although he did not respect the union he did so because he needs all the help he can get to beat the other candidates all of whom are corporate stooges. Paul is running a campaign that is fighting every big media company there is out there so when he gets invited to a show like the view he unfortunatly could not turn it down. Yes it might upset unions a small amount but the amount of exposure he gained more than balanced it out.
As far as his actual views on unions, he is very supportive of the right to form a union and be in a union. He will not however extend any special benifits to unions. But I do not think that is what anyone in unions is asking for.
His non union related policies are very favorable to most union employees I know. We all are hurting in the pocket and his ellimination of the income tax would be helpful. His controlled federal spending would stop inflation which is in reality like a pay cut each year. And his reforms to the health care market would make health care a reasonably priced service once again.
Travis Pahl
Well good for Ron Paul ! It’s about time that a candidate not cow tow to union bosses. You have the right to picket and withhold your labor from your employer if you choose, but you seem to think that you also have the right to force, by law, everyone else to go along with you. If your picket is just, why do you need laws that don’t allow business owners to replace those who won’t report to work ? If your complaint is just why would anyone take such a job ? Its precisely the fact that unions need laws that force everyone else to do what unions want them to do that proves that unions are usually whining about things and wanting too much. There are many other people out there willing to work those jobs. Don’t they have a right to apply for a job that you won’t do, and that a business owner is willing to interview them for ? So much for freedom eh ?
Is there are contradiction in this statement:
“This year, Paul voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to exercise their freedom to form a union.
All major Democratic presidential candidates support the Employee Free Choice Act, while the Republican candidates have either voted against it, expressed opposition to it or not taken a position.”
Ron Paul is a republican. He believes that people should be able to form unions, and yet because he doesn’t do what unions want all the time he is somehow not a good person. Unions don’t even do what all their members want all the time, does that make them bad unions?
Glad to see a presidential candidate ignore a picket line. This is a positive to me.
A cardinal principle for working class people is to respect picket lines. To do otherwise is to aid and abet enemies of laboring people.
Ask yourself this question: What item or service is so important that would justify the crossing of a picket line to obtain it? When we see a picket line we honor it and go somewhere else to get what we need.
Workers strike out of need, not out of whimsy. They strike to keep their jobs, or their health care, or their pensions. Sometimes they are forced to strike for wage increases so they will not fall further behind increases in cost of living.
The last time I looked, this was an AFL-CIO website. It appears that it is being invaded by anti-union zealots and hypocrites. (That is an apt description for people who justify crossing picket lines! They, on the other hand, would be first in line to rant and rave if it was their ox that was being gored!)
To all of you who justify crossing picket lines I have this to say: Go find a site where you are wanted! (There are plenty of anti-worker websites funded by those who want to keep workers in a perpetual state of economic insecurity.)
Ron Paul is a fink, and so are the people who offer lame alibis for his crossing of a picket line.
Period!
I concur with Rich A. Why are we even accepting comments from these anti-union people? This is a union web site! We have to listen to this garbage on a daily basis as well as attacks on our pro-union elected officials. I am very surprised that Ron Paul would cross a picket, when his people all over the country have been trying to pick up union support for him. Now that I know he crossed a picket, I will not be receptive to him or any of his supporters attending our union functions. I wonder if the person who said “Good for Ron Paul” in the comments, plans to vote for him. My guess is probably not.
With all due respect to Seth Micheals , who’s blog posts i read religiously ,and to Rich A. who I totally agree with if this was a perfect world ,but due to this story and a posting on my homesite asking for interaction with the story i made a comment there and I would like to bring that into the discussion here .
Note - this is my view and not that of the UnionReview site which I am a co-administer and is solely intended to make not just union workers think about their own showing of solidarity ,but of the dire need to communicate right the the wrongs done to us by the big corporate monopolies against our entire country.
I have to say, and some of you might not like it.
what is worse?
Ron Paul who is not a card carrying union member crossing a picket line while the Democrats who are mostly pandering for union endorsements didn’t, or our own union brothers continuing to buy foreign cars, Carhartt clothes, Red Wings boots, Hersheys chocolate, shop at wal-mart, fly Jet Blue, have misclassified non-tax paying aliens work on their houses and lawns, ships with Fed-Ex, stay at Four Points by Sheraton, drink Yuengling beer, shop at Circuit City,complained about those “scum bags” in the MTA who went on strike in 2005 and reads the NYPost on a daily basis. The members, you know the ones, who just bitch about their union leaders and don’t make the tiniest effort to try and correct what they view is wrong.
Ron Paul is in no way obligated to show solidarity to the WGAE, unfortunately there are a whole lot of card carrying union members who cross picket lines, I have more respect for him doing as he normally would in the situation, while right here in Long Island union members cross a Building Trade sanctioned picket every day.
as i said, what is worse?
A guy who walks as he said he would or a guy who takes an oath and disregards his vows.
How ignorant have we become that simply because a man crosses a picket once it effectively overrides all that he has stood for as a public servant. The man has supported our rights as union laborers and the rights of unions yet now we betray him because he finds himself in a desperate fight for his political future? I feel that Pemmert and Rich are acting rather childish about this ordeal and if they are so simple minded as to throw out a ballot for a candidate without looking at any of his political stances or voting history, but simply out of a reflexive backlash, they should not be casting a ballot anyway.
Have we become so base as to believe that anyone who choses to express their freedom of speech by crossing a picket line is “aiding and abeting the enemies of laboring people”? Rich, please, keep your radicalism to yourself, as you obviously do not speak for all of your fellow union members. Ron’s job is to get elected, and by saying he shouldn’t be using advertising time on that show, you are saying he shouldn’t be doing his own job. Ron crossed that line out of need, so please, think about your arguments before you so boisterously pollute the website.
The worse story here is how quickly we have turned on our friends.
I applaud the comments of “LP” & “JH”. Any Union member that had previously considered voting for Ron Paul based upon his voting record relating to free trade can now look for another candidate. Ron Paul couldn’t care less about our struggles in the workplace. Crossing the picket line of the Writers Guild is proof positive of that. Ron is finally out of the closet.
I admire the attempts of “tpahl” to conduct damaged control on Ron’s behalf. Sorry Travis; nice try though. As a point of order, I would like to correct your assertion that: “His controlled federal spending would stop inflation which is in reality like a pay cut each year.” I have seen countless video documentations of Ron Paul denouncing the FEDERAL RESERVE as the primary cause of what in his words is a hidden tax on the American people called inflation. Controlled federal spending is not where the real rub is, at least according to Ron. His support of repealing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is what initially drew my attention to his campaign. I suppose if I was forced to vote Republican; perhaps, I might could support him based largely on that issue. Thankfully, I’ve got other options. Moreover; rationalizing Ron’s alienation of Labor’s vote by suggesting that the trade off for greater exposure is more beneficial to his campaign than directly courting Labor’s vote is not going to get you anywhere with the readers of this blog. Bad strategy! Why not just say Ron Paul has such a selfish ambition to win the election that he doesn’t mind stepping on, over, or around the common people in order to gain a little extra exposure?
To “Rich A” & “pemmert2″: I think having anti-union opinion posted on our Union websites is good for two reasons.
One: It lets us know that they (the anti-union bums) are interested in what we have to say. If they weren’t, then they wouldn’t be reading, let alone posting anything here. It’s psychologically revealing. I get a kick out of reading their posts, with all the clever little remarks. Their concepts look great on paper, but the field implementation doesn’t work out so well for the majority of American worker/citizens that coincidentally get to vote.
Most of their posts are quite boring, but occasionally I’ll run across one that is too irresistible not to return comment. I especially love it when they advocate Corporate welfare programs while simultaneously denouncing Social welfare. The level of their arrogance is usually rivaled only by the level of their hypocrisy. They can say whatever they like; but over the years, the single greatest anti-poverty movement in the world has been the American Labor Movement. Anti-union folks dance all around that issue but never like to take it head-on.
Two: It conversely serves as a wake-up call to the apathetic members among us. The inactive members suddenly become active again when they hear first-hand, for themselves, just how motivated the anti-union forces are at destroying all that has been fought to achieve. Education of the memberships by alerting them to the determination level of the opposition is essential before Union apathy can be conquered. Come Election Day our members will turn out in greater numbers and will be more inclined to vote for the Labor endorsed candidates. The editors of this site know exactly what they are doing. The poor anti-union saps are the ones without a clue.
Rich A.
Your argument makes the assumption that a job is something that belongs to you. It does not. It is no more yours then the air is yours exclusively. It is the business owner who has the right to entrust whomever he pleases with is property. If you had yard work to be done, and I came along singing a good tune, so you hired me to do it, yet after the first day on the job i was out on your front walkway with a picket sign you would be inclined to no longer trust me with your yard and find someone you could trust, if possible. I have a right to withhold my labor and you would have the right to find someone else to entrust with your property. Plain and simple. If the complaint is legit and just, you don’t need any laws to prevent others from interviewing for the work, they would instead join me on the sidewalk. So crossing a picket line is merely a display that a particular person does not agree with your assertion that the business owner is being unfair, hence his willingness to do business with them. Labor is elevated by productivity not by protest.
Having been in a union for 41 years, and having marched in many picket lines - both with my union and with other unions - one could say I’ve seen a thing or two.
I’ve seen cops club innocent protestors; I’ve seen hired thugs with snarling dogs chase peaceful picketers; I’ve seen “deputized” henchmen arrest men and women for doing nothing more than walking a picket line; I’ve seen lousy, two-bit, scum-mercenaries brought in by the bosses to scab, and I’ve seen the inside of a jail because I refused to cower when a cop told me to “move on”.
All the “intellectual” malarkey I’ve read that tries to justify Ron Paul finking on the Writers, or the baloney that LP wrote (LP sounds like a shill for the National Right To Work Committee) are examples of working class people kissing-up to the very power brokers who are shafting them!
Only working class people worry about medical insurance, mortgage payments, public education, the theft of their pensions, seeing their kids shipped to Iraq, having their jobs moved offshore, affordable housing, Social Security, etc. The wealthy don’t have those worries. They, instead, concern themselves with garnering more power or amassing greater fortunes. They sure as heck don’t need apologists from the working class making excuses for them. They’re doing quite well. Look around. Who is it that is getting shafted? An insurance company CEO who gets a $1.6 billion bonus? Nope. An airline COO who gets a $100 million “golden parachute”? Nope. On-the-take politicians? Nope. Silver-spoon stockholders? Nope. Think about it. Donald Trump declares bankruptcy several times and is still rolling in dough. It takes working people who declare bankruptcy (50% of them because of medical debt) years and years to repair their credit. Those who refuse to acknowledge a double standard exists in our nation have their heads in the sand (or someplace else).
If working men and women all took a week off at one time, the US would grind to a halt and an economic crisis would result. How would business owners who supposedly ‘own the jobs” get by? They wouldn’t.
In a moral and just society we’d “take what we need and leave the rest.” Most capitalists in America are neither moral nor just. To think otherwise is to defy history…at your own peril.
Where has all the straight talk gone???? Some of the people who have posted (above) need to ask themselves the question that was posed by songwriters Arlo Guthrie and Florence Reese: Which Side Are You On?”
“Don’t scab for the bosses
Don’t listen to their lies
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance
Unless we organize”
Symbols, they’ve always meant something. They always will. A cross, a cross burning, a red star, a U.S. flag, a picket line. Ron Paul crossed a picket line of working people trying to bring democracy to the workplace. He sent a clear message. Corporate dictatorships are more important than democratic workplaces. His actions stated loudly and clearly, “long live the divine right of capital!” If it weren’t for the millions of workers who sacrificed their limbs, lovers and lives to confront the absolutists of the workplace nothing would have changed over the last century, child labor, 12 hour days, festering cess pools of nepotism, favoritism, denial and poverty. In 1776 the workers of Boston sided with the mucky mucks to overthrow absolutist political power. They later used the symbol of the Liberty Bell. In 2007 it is time that the divine right of capital be subjected to some revolutionary spirit. God bless the patriots of the middle class. God bless the Writers Guild members. Democracy cannot survive in America if we turn workers into docile, unthinking sheeple in the workplace. Economic power equals political power. Hitler knew it. He destroyed the unions before he destroyed the Jews. Lenin knew it when he destroyed the Soviets to install the Communist Party. I’ve taught my approximately 1800 high students for 17 years to question authority in both the political and economic arena.
I’ve tried to instill in them the democratic spirit of collective action vs the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest mentality of capitalism. Democracy must not end at the workplace door. Capitalism without democracy breeds fascism! Workers must be empowered in the workplace or the U.S. as a republic is doomed. One thing I learned from the great labor leader Cesar Chavez, when I worked for him for two years, non-violent, democratic, worker power is the most potent force we have for change and progress in America. It is why I and a motley group of volunteers spent 16 years raising one million dollars to erect the “Spirit of Solidarity” National Labor/Immigrant Monument in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the only labor monument in North America at the entrance to a presidential museum. Symbols. They have power to build, change, enrich, encourage, strengthen and honor. The picket line is the power of the people! Ron Paul needs learn from the other Paul, John Paul and get his priorities straight.
Rich A,
So far, I have not seen you directly address any of the well thought out arguments for my positions on this matter. You seem to be more compelled by demagogy and straight up Marxist style class struggle. I am perplexed to find this kind of an attitude from an adult and a fellow American. However since this tack seems to have it appeal, let me tell you exactly who I am. I am a middle aged (32) husband and father. My first child has just been born to me and due to previous illnesses my career was ruined. I am a cancer survivor, and I now stay home raising my daughter. My credit was ruined due to the illness. I blamed my employer at first, however i realized something, i made the choice to not have insurance, at the time i was single, i could have had some, but I thought the rates were too high for someone who was so young and with no responsibilities. You know what ? I was right, the rates are too high for someone young like that, and why ? Because of government regulations and Union requirements that force insurance coverage of things like alcoholics and drug rehab. Totally non insurable things, that force one group of people to subsidize others. So did i blame others ? Some others, such as the government for the most part. The benefits that people receive that are not acquired by free choice, but rather by regulation or force of law costs someone else something without their consent. I am no mans shill as you called me, I am a stay at home Dad, making a home for my family, out of work, and very concerned that my area may turn into another Detroit. You remember Detroit right, that once great city, home to that once great American industry, all brought down, and still being brought down by one entity, the UAW. Toyota has no union, yet the workers have benefits, Honda has no union yet people get health care. When you use envy of those who have a lot as a tool to engender others to action you sink us all to a very low place. Please rethink this tendency to obsess over what others have or don’t have. The Bible tells us NOT to covet your neighbors goods. I think this is a wise policy. Do we have needs, yes, are they legitimate, yes, are unions the way to get them, not really. The best way to secure your future is to be productive, and be worth to your employer what you would like to be paid. He is your ally not your foe. Too many want to bite the hand that feeds them, and thats why many are out of work more than any other reason.
There, I am capable of demagogy as well.
wob45,
You spent 16 years to raise one million dollars for a monument to Nationalized Labor ? Ron Paul raised over 4 million dollars in 24 hours by people interested in Liberty and Freedom. I would say the deck is stacked against you and your movement. Thank God.
LP:
I’m sorry to hear of your health situation. Firsthand experience has taught me some lessons of courage that I know you have suffered. Catastrophic health problems are the number one cause of bankruptcy filings in America, today. It is one of many problems that America faces for which Labor has seen fit to address on behalf of you, me, and many others.
If you truly believe that: “The best way to secure your future is to be productive, and be worth to your employer what you would like to be paid. He is your ally not your foe.”
I can’t help but to wonder; where is your ally now that you can no longer be productive for him? Is he padding the cost of the goods and/or services that he sells or provides so that he can continue to finance his lobbing efforts of your government to work against you? Or has he struck down the company’s political financial efforts from next year’s budget and passed those savings along to the American consumers? Hopefully, he is a better employer to you than what the millions of us have experienced.
I don’t know what size company or what sector of business you were formerly employed. Each segment of our economy will demand a different application of employment compensation packages. There is not a one-size fits all cure to the plight of the American worker.
You mention Detroit. The ill effects of globalization are being felt there first; the rest of America is to follow in short order. Why do you think the Labor community was up in arms about NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc.? Why are you directing your anger at what has and is occurring toward Unions? The Unions are the ones that warned you and the rest of America of the impending economic disaster that “free” trade would bring. Labor has warned America of the HIGH COST of “free” trade for decades. Where have you been? The Unions have always set the industry standard for employment compensation. These “great” manufacturing jobs weren’t so great before the Unions made them so. Some of the plants of Toyota and Honda are unionized in the U.S. You should get your facts straight. Apparently, you’re spending too much time watching Fox News and listening to “Right Wing” radio.
To “wob45” you speak of $4 million being raised in a single day; I assume you are referring to November 5, 2007. For the benefit of the readers of this blog, I would like to direct you to this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3016677465630545462&q=ron+paul+fundraising&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
Sounds more like maybe $2-2.5 million from news reports. No one will know for sure until the FEC reports are made public. It still won’t be enough to obtain the republican nomination; and your guy has alienated so many of the other front-runners, I think it’s safe to say he won’t be asked to fill the Vice-Presidency. Your rhetoric and his willingness to cross a picket line is indicative of a desperate campaign. You have been smitten by a candidate that is doomed for failure, and the Primaries haven’t even begun. Why bash Unions for not supporting a candidate that won’t support us?
For more about Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
I wish I had more time to debate you on theses and other issues, but I’m afraid I won’t be able to provide any future comments to you. I’m certain you feel nothing but anger toward me, so feel free to attempt to draw me back in. Your approach of attacking “Rich A” lends credibility to such a prediction. You would be better served to get angry with yourself, though. Organizing yourself into a Union earlier in your life may have proven to be as advantageous to you as it has been for me. There is an old saying among union members, “It doesn’t cost to join a Union…It pays!” Should you feel that you can’t afford to join; I can demonstrate that you can’t afford not to. I hope only the best for you and your family. However; I would advise that there is a more useful way to address the needs of your family than going online to a Union website to conduct union bashing on behalf of a Union-busting candidate. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!?!
Here is a piece of History that you might find helpful: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729&q=the+business+plot&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Watch this, then ask yourself the question; is my employer really my ally? Good luck! Apparently, that’s what is going to be required for you…Luck. I hope that you can pardon me and the millions like me for not wishing to subject our family’s future to such chance under the rule of your candidate. Should your candidate change his position on crossing picket lines, please feel free to return and let us know, won’t you?
That Ron Paul voted against the Employee Free Choice Act is misleading. If any state were to try to pass the same bill he would surely vote for it. As his main idea–it is not the place of the federal government to interfere. As for crossing the picket line, no I don’t approve of it, but I am not going to hold it against the one Presidential candidate that will increase American jobs in the future and hopefully repair our economy–if it’s not too late already.
Fraternal Order,
You may feel you benefit from Unions, but there is a basic economic fallacy here. The fallacy is that people trumpet the benefits of Unions because those who are working do in fact benefit from them. I agree that this is true, however you never acknowledge that the increased benefits for some come at a cost to others in the form of unemployment. So you only acknowledge what you see, and benefit from without giving any weight to the consequences. This is what has happened in Detroit. Yes NAFTA, and CAFTA are not really free trade, they are managed trade, and as such I oppose them as well. They benefit the corporation by law. But Unions benefit themselves by law as well. That is my whole point. Everyone is living at the government trough, the companies, the unions, the unemployed (if the collect unemployment from the state). What ever happened to earning it ? If a Union forces an employer to deal with them by law, and then requires too much of them in compensation where will the rest come from ? It will come in the form of layoffs, and it always does. I say it is immoral. No one on this thread has yet to address much less refute my original point. That is that it is fine for a Union to protest, picket, and strike, however it is also fine for anyone to not participate. This is called freedom guys, stop trying to restrict the freedom of others for the benefit of your own wallets. You don’t like it when the corporations do it, so don’t do it either.
LP. After spending millions Ron Paul will be forgotten after the presidential election next year, if he even makes it that far and I predict he will not! Americans tend to be too grounded to follow extremists, whether they are libertarians or communists. I’ve known many extremists of all stripes over the years. The Spirit of Solidarity will be around another 100 years as a beacon and a symbol of the struggle of ordinary people overcoming extraordinary odds. Maybe that is why that great defender of freedom and liberty, Lech Walesa of Poland, made a special visit to the site. Why don’t you buy a $100 brick for your hero Ron Paul, that way people will remember him past next week. Better yet a couple thousand and we will put his name on the bronze plaque that millions of people see on their way to the Ford Presidential Museum. Surely, this way he will be remembered past next year! Ron is an amusing oddity for the media among the G.O.P., nothing more. Wait, his fifteen seconds of fame just elapsed. Ron who? Fads like Ron Paul come and go, the ideas of brotherhood, solidarity and the common good will live on as long as workers have collective power in the marketplace. Thank God!
wob45,
Once again a demagogic and irrelevant post ! Is there even one person who can in any way even begin to address my point, much less refute it ? Brotherhood ? Solidarity ? Do those who used to work at a plant and were laid off because of Union demanded increases, aren’t they part of your brotherhood as well ? Guess not, only those that got the raises are part of the fraternity I guess. No matter if you had to break a few eggs so the rest of you could dine on omelletes.
Oh and by the way on the subject of Detroit and that once great American Industry please read. No truer words were ever written.
http://dev.mises.org/story/2124
LP:
Congratulations, you’ve drawn me back, again. Though, I doubt few are keeping up with such an old item. Forgive me, if my comments come across as condescending; I’m going to try and be as gentle with you as you have demonstrated you are capable of with others.
You have failed miserably to establish any logic with your comments regarding fallacy. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with its definition. A fallacy is a misleading notion, an erroneous belief, or a myth. Judging from your entries, you ought to be quite accustomed with what it means, since they are so full of them. You state:
“…but there is a basic economic fallacy here. The fallacy is that people trumpet the benefits of Unions because those who are working do in fact benefit from them. I agree that this is true…”
First, you lay the foundation for defining “a basic economic fallacy” then you neglect to do so. Second, you leap to claiming that the fallacy is initiated by “people trumpet(ing) the benefits of Unions,” which has no shred of economic merit. Finally, you switch back to agreeing with your self defined economic fallacy. Are you kidding me? You agree with what you just defined as being a myth! A myth conjured up with no supporting economic evidence, I might add. Can you hear how ludicrous you come across as being?
You have later stated:
“is there even one person who can in any way even begin to address my point, much less refute it ?
No, probably not! Your comments are without point. They are in fact, pointless. They are illogical at worst and invalid at best. How can I or anyone else address or refute your point when the origin of your arguments are flawed with invalid major and minor premises? How can one match your conjecture with reliable logic and valid analysis? You should study a basic course in deductive reasoning, then come back to debate me. Your own comments define you as being as wacky as the candidate that you support.
It is simply not worth my time, nor anyone else’s, to try making sense of the chopped up mess that you have slurred upon this thread. So, this is really my last attempt.
All of the sound economic studies conducted by independent experts in their fields have pointed that the primary reasons for layoffs in America are related to outsourcing and technology. Independent experts are the ones that the corporations, politicians, and yes…Unions have absolutely no influence over. The economist George Reisman who wrote the article to which you link is hardly independent. Neither is the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His writings and that institution are havens for Libertarians. I now know that you are no Republican in favor of Fascism. You’re no Democrat in favor of Socialism. You are a Libertarian in favor of Capitalism. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds of the world would be proud of you.
Ultimately, you can’t have it both ways. On one hand you insinuate that Unions contribute to production inefficiency because some bad apple employees are hard to weed out of a work group when they enjoy job security provisions in their negotiated labor contacts. On the other, you falsely site that “increased benefits for some come at a cost to others in the form of unemployment” namely layoffs. The primary reasons for layoffs have proven to be related to outsourcing and technology. If Unions contribute to inefficiency, even in your fictitious scenario, shouldn’t that cause an increase of employment instead of a decrease, as you have slandered? If Union wages drive up operational expenses, doesn’t it stand to reason that they force the Companies to increase efficiency in order to remain competitive in their markets? Surely you are not suggesting that an inefficient workforce would benefit our economy by reducing layoffs and unemployment, or are you? This stands in stark contrast to your statement, “The best way to secure your future is to be productive, and be worth to your employer what you would like to be paid”? Logically, the persuasion of your argument is that efficient Union workers contribute to unemployment because they are overly productive. Any other conclusion would be illogical or invalid and on that note perhaps we have found common ground to agree.
Libertarianism is not nearly as noble of a governmental philosophy as you most likely believe. Conservatives opposes the ideology of Libertarians based largely on their stance concerning victimless crimes. Libertarians are both overly tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles (like recreational drug use) and intolerant towards the political views of others. Your posts here are a perfect case in point. Recreational drug use also contributes to an inefficient workforce. As a shop steward, I have helped a few members successfully navigate rehabilitation utilizing the Company’s Employee Assistance Program negotiated in our Labor Contact. I have seen even more terminated for failure to comply with the requirements of the program. The net result in both cases is a more efficient workforce.
Libertarians contend that an agreement between laborers and employers to perform work is simply a contractual agreement of exchanging the use of one form of property (labor) for another (wages) and there is no particular need to tie production to ownership. Labor critics often respond that neglecting to tie production to ownership often results in situations in which the producers (workers) do not receive the full benefit of their own labor, or that impoverished laborers cannot “voluntarily” make agreements with someone because the capitalist’s control of the means of production is coercive.
Objectivists have criticized libertarians for suggesting that a just society is based on a axiomatic (intrinsic) belief in liberty or a pragmatic (subjective) belief that uses the practical outcome of capitalism. Objectivists argue that abstract ideas don’t exist in a vacuum, and thus the concept of liberty needs to be validated by a process of reason with an underlying philosophy of rational selfishness, reason, and objective reality.
Critics of the economic system favored by libertarians, laissez-faire capitalism, have argued that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They have argued that advances in economics show that people’s actions are not always rational, that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, and that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health. Other economic criticism concerns the transition to a libertarian society. For instance, Labor has argued that privatizing Social Security would cause a fiscal crisis in the short term and damage individuals’ economic stability in the long term.
Libertarian proposals to decrease the size or centralization of government may have the opposite of their intended effect. John Donahue argues in The American Prospect that when power is shifted to local authorities, parochial local interests predominate at the expense of the whole, leading to inefficiency, corruption, and loss of freedom - as when limits on federal power were used to defend segregation. He claims with regard to proposals for federal devolution that,
“Collective value is squandered in the name of a constricted definition of gain. States win advantages that seem worthwhile only because other states bear much of the costs. America’s most urgent public challenges… involve the stewardship of common interests. The fragmentation of authority makes success less likely.”
Others think that libertarianism suffers from another faulty premise; that people will ultimately act in their best interests. Critics argue that people often do things that are not in their own interests, sometimes even if they know this, as in the case of drug addiction. The libertarian opposition to a standard, state-run educational system, and support for private education and home schooling, with no enforced quality standards, makes critics question how many citizens would know what is in their best interests in a libertarian society. Paul Kienitz writes, “As increasing technology enables ever greater amplification of abilities, the separation between those who start out with abundant resources and those who don’t, in terms of what they can then get out of the market, is likely to widen further… The least we can do is to not egregiously widen the gap ahead of time if we can help it.” This is why Labor opposes privatizing education or private school vouchers.
Many argue that big government is simply the only way to accomplish certain large-scale projects, such as the space program. Some endeavors of mankind are so complex that they require the (possibly coerced or forced) participation and funding of millions of people. The United States was only able to compete in this field by the formation of a new publicly funded agency, NASA. The private sector was unable to compete with the USSR’s government space program, and there has never been a successful privately-funded moon landing. Critics of libertarianism say that by the time market forces necessitate space exploration, it may be too late; the earth may be too prohibitively drained of resources by that time to put forth a proper space exploration effort.
As an extension, libertarians are often seen as short-sighted. Their philosophies solve immediate problems but do not address long-term problems. When pressed with this issue, many libertarians ask why they should care about the future of humanity, or at least past the point that they personally cease to exist. Because libertarianism is a philosophy with a strong basis in the merits of self-interest, its plans are restricted to the individual human lifespan. While this is fine for a small, agrarian society, it does not work as well with the large-scale technologically advanced societies we have today. Sometimes, ensuring the future prosperity of mankind means making investments which will not come to fruition until several generations later. Since making these investments is not based in self-interest, libertarian policies often stand against those of large-scale undertakings that span beyond one’s own life.
Environmentalists like Jeffrey Friedman argue that libertarians have no method of dealing with collective problems like environmental destruction: “The environment is the libertarian Waterloo: it reveals the flaws of the doctrine in a way that seems to ensure that no ‘answer’ is forthcoming.“ Environmental critics argue that a libertarian society cannot prevent natural resources from being destroyed, or the environment from being polluted, because of its rejection of collective regulation and control. Critics, find libertarian attempts to protect the environment through property rights are lacking. They see natural resources (like whales or the atmosphere) as too hard to privatize, and legal responsibility for damage (from pollution or wild animals) as too hard to trace. They also point to a phenomenon whereby short-term profits can give an incentive for some to buy up resources, deplete them quickly and move on, regardless of long-term values. They argue that this shortsightedness is especially problematic in an environmental context, where the ramifications of actions can take centuries to develop, dooming efforts to deal with problems through privatization.
Libertarians have been criticized for their style of argument and perceived motivations. Libertarianism is seen as a Utopian philosophy by some of its critics. Jonah Goldberg wrote:
“Ask a libertarian (no, not all libertarians…) what the Department of Education should do, and he will say ‘Well, the Department of Education shouldn’t exist.’ Now of course he’s right… But it does. I’ve seen it. It’s practically brimming with bureaucrats who aren’t going away and they’re awaiting orders from somebody to do something… I always compared libertarians to the Celtic warrior-tribes often employed by the Kings of Great Britain. They are incredibly useful as allies in battle, but you wouldn’t want them to actually run things.”
Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas to justify and maintain what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. Libertarianism has been characterized as an ideology for the spoiled or rich, who seek to justify their own greed or selfishness or who seek a means of thinking themselves inherently superior, rather than simply privileged. Brook Shelby Biggs wrote in Wired, “The ironic thing is that many of today’s loudest libertarians were once… stuffing daisies into the barrels of loaded guns… Funny how once they are financially secure, suddenly world peace and economic justice seem less important, crazy ideological college hijinks. Defending one’s own wealth is so time-consuming!”
Alternatively, libertarians are criticized for dogmatism. In a parody of a libertarian pamphlet, Mike Huben writes “Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist!” One common characterization is that libertarians immediately resort to calling their opponents “communist” for any disagreement. Economist, Milton Friedman, joked about an incident in which Ludwig von Mises stormed out of a room full of libertarian economists, yelling, “You’re all a bunch of Socialists!” Even prominent libertarians argue that the ideology’s culture can be a liability. Hernando de Soto, a prominent free-market economist who works to encourage the growth of capitalism in the Third World, stated in an interview:
“One of the problems that you see mainly in Latin America, which is the area I’m most familiar with, is that people who have created special legal niches of privilege among themselves, and who have no way of justifying the privileges that they have created for themselves, have a tendency of quoting a lot of Friedman and Hayek and all sorts of libertarian writers, to justify their privileges.
So if you are about to open a libertarian club, or NGO, or a think tank in Latin America, and all the guys that sign up have got pinstripe suits and nice silk ties, you’d better be careful. You’d better start suspecting that something’s wrong.”
The bits and pieces that appeal to Labor about Libertarianism is not outweighed by the chunks and gobs that work against us. Perhaps after Ron loses his Republican bid he can run as a third Party candidate and help a Democrat the same way Ross Perot did in ‘92. Keep those Ron Paul contributions rolling…the Labor endorsed Democrat will need all the help she/he can get.
Source information: Wikipedia
What BS. You guys are seriously going to gripe about Ron Paul crossing the picket line? I guess it’s better to vote for one of the crooks/corporate whores, huh? The man is the underdog. He’s already pretty much ignored by the main stream media. He needs every opportunity he can get. He’s the guy who wants out of NAFTA. He’s the guy who wants the government out of our pockets.
I’m from Detroit. My friends and family are in the UAW and various trade unions. I think unions can do a lot of good and as a matter of fact, I’m trying to get into the pipe fitters union. But right now I’m afraid that getting our country squared away is just a little more important than a desperate Ron Paul crossing the picket line.
It would be a damn shame if you guys were to write him off over this. Think about the future of the country, not just yourselves.
Oh, I forgot to mention. I’m not even a republican. I’m just desperate for somebody honest (not a corporate whore/warmonger).
Comments that trivialize the significance of crossing a picket line is bona fide BS and begs the question; if Ron Paul had crossed a picket line that you were walking for say UAW or the Pipefitters, would you still vote for him? Would you really expect the other picketers that may be part of your own family to support him after he had decided to oppose them and you? That’s right, oppose. Failure to support is when one just stays home and doesn’t take sides. Oppose is when one cunningly chooses sides with an adversary as part of a calculated maneuver. How would you feel toward the other members of your Union and family that would support and vote for such a defector? Moreover; would it cause you to feel more or less compelled to lend them a hand with a building project or give them a lift home should they need it? I’m not a republican and just to prove it; I don’t participate in the Republican Primary or vote for their nominees. I’ve never hated republicans, but their voting records surely indicate that they hate me. Speaking of voting records, check out this one: http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=TX&pg=2&id=381&year=06&congress=h
Ron supported our position 21% of the time and crossed a picket line during an election campaign. Wow!!! All of Labor should stop everything that we’ve got going on and jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Ron is honest. He honestly doesn’t give a crap about us and we should reward that kind of integrity with our votes and contributions. Who’s with me? Anyone? Ron is NOT “the” guy who wants out of NAFTA; he is just one of the guys that wants out. I seem to remember Dennis Kucinich advocating withdrawal and he’s an underdog.
Any Union member that has ever walked a picket line knows that to cross one is more than just simply a mistake. Anyone that has NEVER walked one should reserve their thoughts until such time as they have walked one or at the very least joined a Union. Otherwise, you’ll come across as looking somewhat foolish.
Fraternal Order,
So glad to see someone took the time to actually respond seriously to what i was saying. I respect that. Now for the rub. Your first point seems to be that no one has refuted my point because i have made no point, did you follow that ? Let me bullet point it for everyone so we are clear ok ?
Point #1 - Unions get and have gotten laws passed that FORCE companies to deal with them.
Point #2 - Unions have gotten laws passed that FORCE other workers to be in the Union if they want to work.
Point #3 - Therefore, when Unions demand too much from a company in compensation, too much being more than they contribute in productive capacity, companies cannot hire others who are willing to do the work at company rates of compensation, and other workers who are already hired who are happy to go to work at current conditions are intimidated or forced to not cross picket lines.
Point #4 - This distortion of the market process of negotiations and freedom of choice of others results in winners and losers. Those who stay with the company after the Union contract is settled are the winners, but their fellow brothers who fall by the wayside to pay for the increases that are above and beyond productive capacity are the losers.
So the economic fallacies here are several. Firstly, is the fallacy of what is not seen. This is where for example someone breaks a glass window and then says well because of the broken window a window maker was employed therefore broken windows are good. Such fallacy only recognizes what is seen, not what could have been if the scenario had never happened. Since the window was broken the owner of the window had to go and replace it, he is out more money that he could have put into something like a new jacket, but can’t because he now has to replace the window. So instead of having a new Jacket and a window he now simply has a window. Same story here, instead of having many more people working, at the market level, Unions have forced others to deal with them so as to gain an advantage and earn for themselves more than their productive capacity justifies. If thats all you see it is a gain, but it fails to see that many others are put out of work to pay to the shortfall.
To say that the primary reason for layoffs is outsourcing is to beg the question. The real question is why are companies looking to outsourcing in the first place ? It is fraught with problems. The reason is because American labor is too expensive. After all, if labor at home were compensated within their productive capacity what reason would there ever be to outsource to a foreign country ? There would never be any impetus to do so. Another contributing factor to this is the monetary system and inflation, however wage earners get those money later on and wages are less affected by it. So why is American labor too expensive ? Because Unions have force companies to deal with them, and then have agitated for more and more stuff beyond what they are worth. So companies faced with this dilemma do they only thing they can legally still do. They send the jobs overseas. Unions are the killing the horse they are riding on.
Now i don’t know how you could have read what i said and say that I had no point, but now that I have bulleted it out for you I hope that, while you may not agree that you can at least agree that on this I have four points, five including my ultimate point of the fallacy of Union policies.
On the issue of independence and the Mises Institute in particular, I would suggest, strongly, that because someone has a view point does not mean they are not independent. There is no such thing as objectivity after all, everyone has a viewpoint. However, funding and the source of it does and can constitute independence, and this is why George Reiseman and the Mises Institute are in fact one of the few independent economic voices out there. Unlike many other think tanks and University studies controlled by tax payer money through the state, the Mises Institute is supported by voluntary contributors alone. No government funding of any kind goes to them, nor will it, since they are no mouthpiece for the state. So while the Unions, Corporations, Governments and Taxpayer funded Universities (yes even the “private” Universities since they take government money in droves) all hire “independent” people to come up with whatever results they want, the Mises Institute is the real independent thinkers as they are beholden to no interest other then their collective selves.
On the subject of Objectivism. Liberty is a natural property of all people. I am not an Objectivist, I have read Rand extensively and I disagree, and so do most modern day Libertarians. You can no more so that Liberty is something that I can have only if I can show that it is beneficial anymore than you can take away my right to my eyeballs unless I prove that they are beneficial to me. It matters not what others think of my liberties, they are mine, given to me by my Creator, and given to all of men by their Creator, and they are as much a property of my nature as having limbs, and hand with opposable thumbs. You should remember the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps study some Christian Theology concerning the nature of man.
On the subject of Monopoly, I defy you to show me of one instance of where in a totally free market that a true monopoly has arisen. It cant be done because by definition it cannot exist. The way that some have come to the conclusion that monopolies exist on the free market is to simply redefine what constitutes a monopoly and then by that new definition declare market monopolies. A Monopoly in the true form is nothing more than a government grant of privilege. Plain and simple, this is how generations of Americans understood the concept, and hence the reason for the Boston Tea Party, a revolt against the East India company, an example of monopoly in its truest form. Business interests however, looking to create legal cartels wanted to change this definition to merely mean big business in general. This new definition changes the impetus from one of protecting the people from the state who has the power to grant Monopoly, to one where people looked to the stat to protect them from the so called Monopolists. There has never been a historical example and never will be on in the future of a Monopoly that was achieved on a free market. Many have tried, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, others, and failed. They tried voluntary cartels with the railroads and they failed. Then they conceived of the ICC. Whala, government sanctioned and legalized cartelization. Wow, once again government was granting monopolies, the very thing that angered the American Colonists was once again put over on us, in the name of protecting us from big business. This is the reason why those of us who labor for a living should totally disavow the state. It is the state who empowers the cartelization of the corporations. Oh but wait, i forgot, Labor is in on this game too. When the government grants monopolistic privileges to Unions they create labor cartels as well. How nice, so no we are a nation, not of free contractors of our labor, but a nation of pawns in this game of competing cartels. How nice. Now we just pick which cartel we are on the side of, John is for the Labor cartel, and Jim is for the Corporate cartel, and these giants battle it out, and in all the infighting freedom was lost. How sad.
By the way, you misunderstand Libertarianism if you think it believes that people will act in their own best interests. I swear for someone who thinks he knows so much, you know nothing. I just love it when some statist like yourself tells me what i believe, i mean really. Lets set the record straight on this ok ? You have a lot of reading to do on this to fully do the subject justice, however here is the short version. Libertarians DO NOT believe that people will do what is in their best interest, but that people will act rationally. Now there is a world of difference between these two things. For example, your mentioning drug addiction. Clearly something that people do that i agree is not in their best interests, however when someone is pressured by friends and a desire to fit in to try a drug and they do it, they act rationally. When someone who is addicted feels the pangs of their need and they continue to use they act rationally. When an insane delusional person sees things that aren’t really there and he responds to them as if they were because he sees them he is acting rationally. The point is plain i hope that acting rationally and acting in ones self interest are not always the same thing, clearly. It is a straw man fallacy to say that Libertarians believe this and then criticize the belief, they do not believe that nor have they ever to my knowledge.
As far as your bringing up various criticisms of Libertarianism. I would say first of all the idea that Capitalism is “a logic all its own” was introduced by none other than Karl Marx himself. In an effort to take logic away from Capitalists, he simply said that logic was simply a means to an ends and Socialism could have its own logic. This is just sillyness, and many have shown. For you to advocate the Marxist- Statist position on epistemology says volumes about your own biases.
I mean clearly if you think that NASA is an example of how great projects can only be done by the sate, you are a statist through and through and I doubt there is any hope for you, however given that I am an optimist i will endeavor to show how wrong you are.
It should be completely clear to anyone that NASA is totally a waste. They have killed more than a handful of people for one, those people are heroes yes, but also victims of bureaucratic ineptness. Can anyone seriously now believe that all of those billions were well spent and necessary now that after space travel has been legalized a man has been rocketed to space by private enterprise for a very small fraction of the price that the taxpayers are forced to pay for it ? Moreover, those space entrepreneurs have found almost from the get go far more economical and simpler means by which to reach space. Their first model takes off like a plane and lands like a plane, something NASA has still yet to achieve !! So for far less money, and at no expense to the taxpayer, a group of private entrepreneurs have done in their first space craft what NASA has never been able to do in its entire history !! So imagine my amusement when you made the claim that space exploration could only be done by the state. Such notions are as old as the 1930’s new Deal philosophies themselves. Get over them please its old and tired. The reality is quite the reverse, space exploration is far too complex, space far to vast, the challenges far to great, the risks to dangerous to entrust to one solitary single government entity. Even NASA agrees with me on this one, hence their support for the legalizing of private exploration efforts into space. I wonder how much further along private efforts would be if the government had not monopolized space from the start. Private efforts have already surpassed government ones in significant ways and the industry is in its infancy. There will be more exciting things to come from those guys, while NASA is still stuck on the launch pad.
Anyway, all that to say that your assertions are simply false. Enjoyed the topic, and i do respect your time and effort, especially in light of the fact that other simply only were able to resort to fluff, however you have not cut the mustard as they say.
P.S., if you think the likes of Rockefeller, Rothschild, J.P. Morgan, and their ilk are Capitalists you have got another think coming. Some of the worst enemies of Capitalism have come from Wall Street not Red Square. These men cartelized the Railroads (ICC), the banks (Federal Reserve) and several other industries. These sort of men are profiteers, not Capitalists. They make their profits off of the political favors they curry from Washington not from their superior performance in the marketplace. Compare James J. Hill’s railroad to almost any other transcontinental railroad being built during his day for a historical example of a real Capitalist (Hill) to those profiteers who care about nothing but profits. What we need is more business leaders who care about principles as well as their profits. One such modern day example is the current CEO of Whole Foods, a principled man in my estimation, and as I said a historical example would be James J. Hill.
This is hardly something I can get worked up about. The Democrats elected in the last election have gone to Washington and done precisely nothing. Paul at least looks to be the real McCoy. He is exactly who he says he is, and has consistently over 20 years in Congress performed exactly as promised.
BTW, before anyone else starts paying too much attention to union opinion on Ron Paul, ask yourself if you have ever actually needed your union to defend you and if they rose to the occasion?
Unions are all too ready to pick your pocket at each paycheck, but when it comes time for them to shell out bucks to hire a lawyer to sue on your behalf, you will find your calls and e-mails going unanswered.
It has been over two years since my employer laid me off after I got sick from work place exposures that resulted in lung disease and a stroke. I supposedly had loss of profession disability coverage and presumably some union protection against work-place health damage, but so far the union has accomplished absolutely nothing.
Ron Paul isn’t pro-union, that is true, but he isn’t pro-corporation either. He believes that business and unions should have to uphold their contracts and obligations. That’s more than I’ve gotten for my union dues so far.