alt.politics.republicans

"Raymond" wrote in message
news: @ ...
> The labor movement is making a Law Reform Not Just For
> Unions

> Bush no friend of Labor
> Bush threatens to use troops against West Coast dockworkers... The far-
> reaching threats made by the Bush administration against the
> International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in the event of a
> West Coast dock strike or work slowdown reveal the essential class
> character of the government's "war on terrorism." In the name of
> national security and its open-ended global war, the White House is
> threatening to use military force to destroy the basic rights of
> workers to organize and fight for decent wages and conditions.
>
> /articles/2002/aug2002/

"basic rights of workers to organize and fight for decent wages and
conditions"

What do these rights consist of?

Note I'm thinking back to the trucker strikes of the 1970's. Striking Truck
Drivers used shotguns to shoot at non-striking truck drivers from freeway
overpasses. Right to fight against those who choose not to fight or to
otherwise protest? And recently, Democrats heavily promoted allowing union
organizers to use coercive measures to force co-workers to vote for
adoptance of labor unions. As to vote fraud, a union organization effort at
my employer at the time yielded over 100 signatures in favor of the union.
This despite the fact the company had far less than 100 employees and many
including myself never signed.

"YES", decried the labor organizers! We have more signatures than the
company has employees! There's no way we can loose the vote now!

Fact is, anytime you endorse protectionism, you place yourself and everyone
else at risk. Protectionism should be temporary, not permanent. Once laws
become emplaced to protect moral accomplishments and those accomplishments
become embedded as a fabric of society, the Labor Union becomes redundant.
You don't keep fighting a war after it's been won. And if you didn't win,
then there's something seriously wrong with your approach. This doesn't
mean you quit fighting. It does mean you change your approach. With that
in mind, in order for Unions to accomplish their objectives, they must
change their corrupt approach. How have Labor Union's changed their
approach to achieving the protection of basic rights of laborers over the
past 60 or 70 years?

In the same manner people are adamant in their aversion towards any
possibility of a declaration of martial law by government, so should they be
critical towards the formation / adoption of Labor Unions. Labor Union
issues should be mandated by law, not by limited term union contracts which
are designed for one singular purpose; with that purpose being to ensure a
continued need for the corrupt Union bosses who thrive by milking millions
of members of the labor force of their hard earned money. Labor Unions
promote continued dependence upon labor unions, not independence through the
promotion of improvements in the moral fabric of society. If Labor Unions
spent as much time striving to solve the employee / employer dilemma as they
have in filling the pockets of Labor Union Bosses, Labor Unions would have
become obsolete many decades ago.

The stock market resulted in the removal of all human values from the
decision making process of corporate America. Labor Unions should pursue
governmental regulations to compensate, regulations which dictate
corporations adhere to the needs of society, a society from which if it did
not exist, neither would the corporation.

But heed my warning. Protectionism is a two-edged sword.

Protectionism should be treated just like martial law. Only use either for
short term objectives. Objectives designed to enable the masses to gain a
strong enough foothold in society that they would then be able to survive
without Labor Union or Martial Law sustenance. Look to those who promote
Labor Unions or Martial Law. Ask yourself these questions:

1) Are the promoters more interested in the Labor Union as a permanent
solution?
2) Or are the promoters more interested in the Labor Union as a temporary
evil to overcome a primal weakness?

In referring to the Labor Union as a 'temporary evil', I equate Labor
Union's with Martial Law. Both should be treated as "Evil's" to be used
only as extreme measures to overcome a negative trait of society and to
fulfill the immediate and dire needs of that society with the ultimate goal
of enabling the members of society to have an equitable chance to survive on
their own within newly adopted reforms to that society.