"another" and "better" career alternative?.....Nope!

John Jacobson johnjac at nospam.xnet.com
Tue Jan 16 23:11:48 EST 2001


No, they usually don't know the difference. The union leaders tell them
things that make the union leaders seem necessary and effective and the
union rank and file trust them. So then when the leaders say they need to
strike, or something, the rank and file see no reason to be disloyal to the
union, even though union leaders very often lead them into unemployment that
way. The rank and file trust their leaders, and so they never blame them
when the result is something they definitely would have rejected, like the
plant closing down and all the workers losing their jobs because the costs
got too high. The average union member doesn't have time to educate himself
on economics, so he doesn't realize that a lot of what the union leaders
tell them is disinformation intended to make the union seem more necessary.
Even when the union leaders bring a company to bankruptcy they always manage
to convince the workers that the union had no blame in their impending
unemployment. That is an amazing monument to the trust that ignorant workers
will place in someone who pretends to be their savior.

So, no, the union leaders don't speak for what the employees really want (or
no strikes or union-forced cost increases would ever result in a company
shutting down permanently).

"DPH" <kgclg15 at kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
news:3A6509CB.BD12F28E at kg.hsanet.net...
> Well, the union leaders better speak what most of the members want, or the
> members will vote themselves some different leaders...
>
> DPH
>
> John Jacobson wrote:
>
> > Unions don't speak for their members anyway. They speak for the union
> > leaders.
> >
> > "DPH" <kgclg15 at kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A642E40.F8057299 at kg.hsanet.net...
> > > John Jacobson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "DPH" <kgclg15 at kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3A63C98F.B7679EDB at kg.hsanet.net...
> > > > > Lawson English wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That is just another reason for a union.  An IT Professional's
union
> > could
> > > > make
> > > > > their position known, and exhort their membership to write and
call
> > their
> > > > > congressmen, and suggest to their membership which congressmen
would
> > > > better
> > > > > butter their bread (say that 3 times fast... ), etc.
> > > >
> > > >    They can do that now, without a union.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, they can't.  It takes an organization for a group to be able to
speak
> > with
> > > one voice.  People genearlly don't focus too well, with the same
opinions,
> > > without some kind of group.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Unions don't have to all be
> > > > > about strikes.  If U want to see an effective lobbying
association,
> > join
> > > > the NRA
> > > > > and experience the barrage of information concerning gun rights
that
> > it
> > > > sends its
> > > > > members.  I'm an NRA life member,  and could probably paper the
walls
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > correspondence I get from them in a year.  A union of, say, 4
million
> > IT
> > > > workers
> > > > > would be a formidable political force.
> > > >
> > > >    I don't think you can compare the NRA with a labor union. It
doesn't
> > > > exist under the purview of the NLRB, or according to the idea that
> > > > management and workers are necessarily at opposite ends of the
battle.
> > >
> > > It exists with the idea that the 2nd amendment has many enemies that
must
> > be
> > > defeated politically.  It didn't start out like that, but has gone
there
> > out of
> > > necessity.  Without the NRA, our guns would likely be in some
government
> > > repository waiting to be dumped into the sea.  Its the same sort of
> > adversarial
> > > relationship.  I'm not sure how the NLRB is relavent to this, tho.
> > >
> > > DPH
> > >
>







More information about the Bioforum mailing list