01-27-2006, 02:29 AM
AGAINST / NAY.
On might argue that unions are necessary or a necessary evil, but the fact remains that like Adam Smith's invisible hand, they will appear.
Quote: 1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.[/quote]
In my city, as in virtually all major North American cities, the police are unionised even though the name is "Police Association."
Quote: 2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.[/quote]
This is a civil right guaranteed by other UN resolutions. And protection does not include protection from mandatory dues payments (a.k.a. the Rand formula).
Quote: 3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers[/quote]
And neither does any pro-business resolution require them to be fair in their dealings. So?
Quote: 4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law[/quote]
Wildcat strikes are by definition illegal. So this means "illegal strikes are illegal," a classic illustration of tautology. It is precisely because of the propensity for workers to go on strike, legal or not, that unions are important. If strikes are to occur, they should occur under predictable and safe conditions for all. Strikebreaking and unionbusting do not end labour unrest, they just feed it.
Secondary picketing is freedom of speech.
Union action outside of the rule of law is already illegal, see tautology above.
More ramblings like this found on my NS Wiki pages.
On might argue that unions are necessary or a necessary evil, but the fact remains that like Adam Smith's invisible hand, they will appear.
Quote: 1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.[/quote]
In my city, as in virtually all major North American cities, the police are unionised even though the name is "Police Association."
Quote: 2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.[/quote]
This is a civil right guaranteed by other UN resolutions. And protection does not include protection from mandatory dues payments (a.k.a. the Rand formula).
Quote: 3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers[/quote]
And neither does any pro-business resolution require them to be fair in their dealings. So?
Quote: 4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law[/quote]
Wildcat strikes are by definition illegal. So this means "illegal strikes are illegal," a classic illustration of tautology. It is precisely because of the propensity for workers to go on strike, legal or not, that unions are important. If strikes are to occur, they should occur under predictable and safe conditions for all. Strikebreaking and unionbusting do not end labour unrest, they just feed it.
Secondary picketing is freedom of speech.
Union action outside of the rule of law is already illegal, see tautology above.
More ramblings like this found on my NS Wiki pages.