[onoway]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-01, 15:43, said:

As with almost everything else, unions have positive values and negative values - the solution is not to dump unions but to maximize value while minimizing negatives.

The problem as I see it is that both unions and businesses seem generally to be locked in adversarial roles, generally speaking, and that leads to idiocy and that leads to unions being broken. It's pretty hard to support a union which threatens to pull all the workers off a job when someone went to get a 2x4 instead of waiting for an appropriately designated person to go get it for them, or to pull all the workers when one clearly incompetent person is either fired or put on notice. That sort of thing makes even the members restless.

The reason for unions is - or was - obvious, I once attended a guest lecture by a couple of coal miners who had been through the coal miners strike in Cape Breton, one of them had been forced into the mine at 9 years old so the family wouldn't be thrown out with nothing but their clothes when his father came down with black lung.there was of course at that time no medical care or anything else much provided, and the old song re " 15 Tons" was precisely accurate. But when the miners finally protested the police ( and "scabs", and union busters) were all imported and it got ugly, I think probably much the same as happened in coal mining areas in the US. The unions eventually were directly responsible for improving abysmal working conditions.

But there are work standards and health care standards legally in place now for everyone, at least in Canada, so much of the original reason for unions has disappeared, and even many of the workers don't see the need for them, and publicly resent having to pay Union dues. The unions have to try to find reasons for there to be a union at all, and in some cases that leads to absurdities like designating who is allowed to fetch a tool and who is not. Many of the public service unions simply bleed the government assuming ( I suppose) that the politicians help themselves so why shouldn't they. So the result is public antagonism as well.

E.g. Our postal service used to be next day for local service, now it can take up to a week and the price of a stamp or parcel has risen astronomically. Since the unions regularly threaten to strke if they don't get whatever they want, they are seen as being to blame. It is a bit bizarre that someone who sits all day in a nice building and sorts mail, ( in our local post office half the time not even getting that right) makes as much as teachers or nurses do, and has a better pension plan. Last month a vendor had paid Canada Post to deliver a computer to my door, they never even tried, but said they had. We had had about a half an inch of snow sitting on the ground for 4 days, so it unless the postman was superman and could fly, nobody had been near the front door. So although home delivery had been paid for I had to fire up the car at -37c to go get it. That sort of thing can quickly make even a union supporter change their mind, as these people can get away with it. They might as well be politicians, doing very little that's useful and gouging the taxpayer for doing it.

As far as teachers are concerned, I think the whole school thing needs to be reexamined. Primary school teachers now routinely assign homework, why? I think any primary teacher who routinely assigns homework to the whole class, if it involves carrying books back and forth daily, should be fired. Children are now developing health issues from the weight of backpacks on young bodies, what the devil is that about? As prominent educators have noted, nobody has a clue what anyone is going to need to know in 20 years, so what's the plan for developing a curriculum? Kids these days often haven't a clue how to make change unless a cash register tells them how much is due, what are the teachers doing that requires hours of homework every day to be done by each and every kid starting with primary school? And how is it that when teachers go on strike for months, and the strike is finally over in late Feb/ early March, the teachers can assure parents and kids, never mind, they can easily cover the curricula in the three months remaining, including for kids looking to apply for university entrance? So what are they normally doing for those 5 other months of school that kids normally attend? And why are the kids required to do hours of homework daily if the curriculum can actually be covered in 3 and a half months? Isn't this then just being a sort of socially acceptable version of child labour?

And what about the bullying which is now rampant, largely as a direct result of herding kids into massive groups and moving them like sheep from enclosure to enclosure from hour to hour? Schools are often more for cultural indoctrination, training for obedience to authority, having little or nothing whatever to do with developing a critical thinking, educated, rational adult. It's been many many MANY years since kids said they felt safe at school, I don't know if anyone even bothers to ask any more, but I clearly remember the fuss when the results changed from feeling safe to not feeling safe, but nothing whatever was done. Now kids are committing suicide from being bullied, sometimes taking other kids and/ or adults with them, there are regular drills about what to do if someone comes to school with a gun, and metal detectors at doors, obviously kids aren't going to feel safer if they are being sent daily to someplace these things are necessary.

I have to wonder how being sent by their parents daily someplace they don't feel safe affects kids in the long run, and if anyone has ever looked at that. I bet any problems are seen as the child's problem, not a result of the environment they are forced into, reach for drugs to help them cope, it's just their failure, nothing needs to change but the child.

Now anything you need to know you can find on the Internet, perhaps the only things kids really need to learn at school is how to read, how to handle basic math (sorry Ken, but more advanced math classes ARE available online for those with the desire and appreciation) and critical thinking, the ability and desire to cut through bs. The arts and crafts which are the first to be cut, should be given preference against the day that robots are doing most jobs and people have no outlet for their energy. But those are much much harder to " teach" not being subject to fixed agreement such as the date of the Gettysburg address and who made it. The arts require a special sort of teacher who knows when it's appropriate to insist the kids color between the lines and when it isn't, traditionally art schools are seldom given credit for turning out geniuses. But at least they could turn out people who have some way to express themselves, of feeling a sense of self expression, whether through dance or writing or carpentry or carving or altering the engine power of cars.

Anyway, that's my rant for today, I may come back and delete it all later, it's far too long, has little to do with the thread topic, although neither does anything else much for the past while. But right now I want some breakfast .

[mike777]

Onoway you may very well be right on your set of facts. Where you go off base is your conclusions from those facts. If you look at your actual set of facts one would conclude all the more reason to have a union. Keep in mind what a union is...it is the members. Members joining together to collectively bargain with the owners, owners whether they be private owners or the general public owners.


If the union makes mistakes then the members of that union need to make changes and be responsible for making changes.
Given your set of facts you make a strong case in favor of unions.

[kenberg]

onoway, on 2017-January-02, 12:10, said:

Now anything you need to know you can find on the Internet, perhaps the only things kids really need to learn at school is how to read, how to handle basic math (sorry Ken, but more advanced math classes ARE available online for those with the desire and appreciation) and critical thinking, the ability and desire to cut through bs. The arts and crafts which are the first to be cut, should be given preference against the day that robots are doing most jobs and people have no outlet for their energy. But those are much much harder to " teach" not being subject to fixed agreement such as the date of the Gettysburg address and who made it. The arts require a special sort of teacher who knows when it's appropriate to insist the kids color between the lines and when it isn't, traditionally art schools are seldom given credit for turning out geniuses. But at least they could turn out people who have some way to express themselves, of feeling a sense of self expression, whether through dance or writing or carpentry or carving or altering the engine power of cars.

I read it all, but I want to focus on this, and not simply because my name was mentioned. Learning comes in several forms, some more suitable for online than others. Well developed online can always be useful and books can be very useful. But there is something else involved in learning, and another person can be very useful there. Take bridge. How to think about a bridge hand. Or how should we think about mathematics. Or a painting.

One of my most disappointing undergraduate courses was something called Fourier Analysis. No need for you to know exactly what this is, I will tell you that for a mathematician the subject holds much fascination. But not the way it was taught. To solve this problem you put these numbers here. To solve this other problem you put these other numbers there. Now stay awake, here is another problem where you put some other numbers somewhere else. The point of The Inferno is not which characters get put into which circle. Well, maybe a little, but it's certainly not the main point.

I said that I have good memories of my high school geometry teacher. Euclid, building on the work of others, developed geometry as a logical system based on axioms.She fully understood this fact, and its importance. That's the main thing, and she was able to get it across. This requires a level of intelligence, and that level is absolutely critical. Was she brilliant? Probably not. Yes I could read the book, but she set the direction. I hope I have given you an idea of the importance I attach to this.

Most youngsters can appreciate science, literature, music, and so on. To varying degrees, of course. I never got much out of poetry. But kids often need someone to suggest a direction. In the old movie Now Voyageur (something of a soap opera but I like it) a psychiatrist (Claude Rains) says that his job, as a patient comes to a crossing, is to suggest "take this road, not that one". Such guidance can be very useful, and it is best done by another human. One who knows something about the paths.

[onoway]

kenberg, on 2017-January-02, 15:53, said:

I read it all, but I want to focus on this, and not simply because my name was mentioned. Learning comes in several forms, some more suitable for online than others. Well developed online can always be useful and books can be very useful. But there is something else involved in learning, and another person can be very useful there. Take bridge. How to think about a bridge hand. Or how should we think about mathematics. Or a painting.

One of my most disappointing undergraduate courses was something called Fourier Analysis. No need for you to know exactly what this is, I will tell you that for a mathematician the subject holds much fascination. But not the way it was taught. To solve this problem you put these numbers here. To solve this other problem you put these other numbers there. Now stay awake, here is another problem where you put some other numbers somewhere else. The point of The Inferno is not which characters get put into which circle. Well, maybe a little, but it's certainly not the main point.

I said that I have good memories of my high school geometry teacher. Euclid, building on the work of others, developed geometry as a logical system based on axioms.She fully understood this fact, and its importance. That's the main thing, and she was able to get it across. This requires a level of intelligence, and that level is absolutely critical. Was she brilliant? Probably not. Yes I could read the book, but she set the direction. I hope I have given you an idea of the importance I attach to this.

Most youngsters can appreciate science, literature, music, and so on. To varying degrees, of course. I never got much out of poetry. But kids often need someone to suggest a direction. In the old movie Now Voyageur (something of a soap opera but I like it) a psychiatrist (Claude Rains) says that his job, as a patient comes to a crossing, is to suggest "take this road, not that one". Such guidance can be very useful, and it is best done by another human. One who knows something about the paths.

I have linked to this guy before but perhaps once again as it shows what I am talking about. Note that he is not talking about needing teachers. He looked for grandmothers, or someone who could fill the role of enthusiastic support and appreciation for the kid's efforts. For sure, there was guidance in that someone provided the kids with the challenge, but his research classrooms are a light year away from anything that probably 90% of teachers today would feel comfortable doing.

Note the enthusiasm in every example, no matter how difficult the challenge. How many teachers see THAT in their classroom with any sort of regularity? Note how it fosters cooperation rather than isolation, every child is never on his or her own, these are always small groups. That is absolutely counter to the ideas that give rise to grading on the curve and other such things.

The kids are also always allowed to move from group to group, so would presumably counter the idea of " my group" vs " not my group" which would be a nice thing to see, given what's just happened in the US elections and elsewhere. Note also that this has had precisely the same result in every place he has tested it, from very remote areas in India that the internet is uncertain at the best of times, to schools in urban England.

http://www.ted.com/t...riven_education

[onoway]

mike777, on 2017-January-02, 15:49, said:

Onoway you may very well be right on your set of facts. Where you go off base is your conclusions from those facts. If you look at your actual set of facts one would conclude all the more reason to have a union. Keep in mind what a union is...it is the members. Members joining together to collectively bargain with the owners, owners whether they be private owners or the general public owners.


If the union makes mistakes then the members of that union need to make changes and be responsible for making changes.
Given your set of facts you make a strong case in favor of unions.

do I? How difficult is it for a member of a group to advocate something other than what the group traditionally is about? I have met many many union members who grump about their union and say they don't see any need for it, but how do you suppose that would go over, especially with the marginally competent who rely on the union to keep their good jobs for them? Who is going to point the finger at a fellow worker and say, "hey guy, you really don't belong here doing this job?" Even if other members agree, that is not the way union members "behave" so it's highly unlikely to happen. That's why you have police who themselves are straight arrow not turning in fellow police who are not, and why they protect them, if only by their silence. The culture of the group is a VERY hard thing to go against. Loyalty is still a cherished value, even if sometimes misplaced.

Like any other organization, a union has the desire to continue to exist, so they do, but what exactly is it that they are accomplishing these days? How many businesses have they stopped from moving overseas or to Mexico in the last 20 years? How are they countering the drift to more and more robotics being used from store checkouts to Amazon pickers to mechanical (and human health) assessments? Isn't it more likely, these days, that the rigid adoption of "he's a union member so must be defended from any issues, even those of his own making and no matter how dire", is working against the other member's (and the union's, for that matter) interests?

How about the perception that unions are actually operating against the public interest, such as driving up costs of services and providing less value? Unions traditionally have been successful ( or not) by motivating public support, that is more difficult to come by when union members are viewed as being greedy and unreasonable. Thus we have seen in almost every contract negotiation teachers crying about needing to have smaller classrooms to be able to do their job adequately but always settling for more money instead. Any wonder the public is a bit jaded about their real motivations?

So I'd be interested in what you think they do now that is so helpful.

[Zelandakh]

onoway, on 2017-January-02, 21:15, said:

The kids are also always allowed to move from group to group, so would presumably counter the idea of " my group" vs " not my group" which would be a nice thing to see,

Would it? That might depend on how the parents have indoctrinated them. In an Indian context, I would not be surprised to find that children in a group with "untouchables" chose to move to another group given the choice. In America, would anyone be surprised to see a mixed class with all black groups and all white ones? Anyone? Of course it depends on the age group - children typically pick this up from parents and their peer group - but you have to be careful with such an approach that it does not entrench sub-divisions rather than removing them. If his literature says that he has never encountered such a thing then I would not be inclined to take his results at face value. In general, few schemes based on individual teaching methods perform well once they have been scaled up nationally.

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2016-December-31, 14:25, said:

Finland has the world's best education system and theyare among the least ytest obsessed countries.

This is sometimes said, but I wonder - is this resulting? Does Finland have the best education system - or just the best outcomes? How influential are cultural factors outside the education system to the outcomes?

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2017-January-03, 07:18, said:

This is sometimes said, but I wonder - is this resulting? Does Finland have the best education system - or just the best outcomes? How influential are cultural factors outside the education system to the outcomes?

The evidence seems to suggest it is the system itself Bill. Norway, for example, follows a more traditional model and does not enjoy the success. It is of course not difficult to see why - in Finland teachers are made up of the absolute cream of their graduates and are given a great deal of freedom to match teaching methods to pupils with extra time being given to any pupils that have difficulties and an extremely high teacher:pupil ratio. Teaching in most other developed countries is largely avoided by the high fliers because it is known to have low salary levels in the long term combined with very high stress levels and extremely high levels of outside control on what can be done.

What is perhaps difficult to say at this stage is how much each of the factors has. If class sizes in America (or the UK, or wherever else) were similarly reduced, what effect would that have? Would having the brightest trained up as teachers make a massive difference? Does child-testing reinforce at an early age the idea that Child A is "good" in school work and Child B "bad", thus conditioning Child B to fail forever? An interesting idea might be to test children every year but to keep test results private and only for internal use. That might allow those in the education system to obtain the information they think they need without introducing the apparent negative effects. Or maybe the lack of testing in Finland has nothing to do with the success whatsoever. For sure there is research going on right now to understand exactly what is most important. Perhaps Helene even knows of some of it and can shed light on the latest developments...

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-01, 15:43, said:

As with almost everything else, unions have positive values and negative values - the solution is not to dump unions but to maximize value while minimizing negatives.

Okay. How do we do that?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-03, 08:08, said:

Okay. How do we do that?

I can't say for sure, but good faith bargaining required both parties to be reasonable. Ridding business form the influences of Wall Street would help, IMO.

On a personal anecdotal note, I used to work for the Boyd Gaming Corporation when it was a closely held corporation, and it was a fine place to work. Later, Boyd Gaming went public and in the next few years the benefits were reduced every year thereafter and working there turned into just another job. Of course, there were a handful of executives who converted private stock and became wealthy, and it was, after all, their company to do with as they pleased. Perhaps part of the solution is ownership who values employees more than excessive personal gains.

To make things better would require smaller companies who did not have to please shareholders, and employees who appreciated their employer and were engaged in its health and well-being. I doubt this is Donald Trump's vision for America.

[mike777]

onoway, on 2017-January-02, 21:45, said:

do I? How difficult is it for a member of a group to advocate something other than what the group traditionally is about? I have met many many union members who grump about their union and say they don't see any need for it, but how do you suppose that would go over, especially with the marginally competent who rely on the union to keep their good jobs for them? Who is going to point the finger at a fellow worker and say, "hey guy, you really don't belong here doing this job?" Even if other members agree, that is not the way union members "behave" so it's highly unlikely to happen. That's why you have police who themselves are straight arrow not turning in fellow police who are not, and why they protect them, if only by their silence. The culture of the group is a VERY hard thing to go against. Loyalty is still a cherished value, even if sometimes misplaced.

Like any other organization, a union has the desire to continue to exist, so they do, but what exactly is it that they are accomplishing these days? How many businesses have they stopped from moving overseas or to Mexico in the last 20 years? How are they countering the drift to more and more robotics being used from store checkouts to Amazon pickers to mechanical (and human health) assessments? Isn't it more likely, these days, that the rigid adoption of "he's a union member so must be defended from any issues, even those of his own making and no matter how dire", is working against the other member's (and the union's, for that matter) interests?

How about the perception that unions are actually operating against the public interest, such as driving up costs of services and providing less value? Unions traditionally have been successful ( or not) by motivating public support, that is more difficult to come by when union members are viewed as being greedy and unreasonable. Thus we have seen in almost every contract negotiation teachers crying about needing to have smaller classrooms to be able to do their job adequately but always settling for more money instead. Any wonder the public is a bit jaded about their real motivations?

So I'd be interested in what you think they do now that is so helpful.

The big main way Unions are helpful is that they allow workers to bargain collectively with owners. This is a big deal and very helpful for workers. Not perfect but helpful, if a union is not that helpful, makes too many mistakes or is corrupt, then let it be destroyed. If your point is corrupt men and women are going to fight their destruction, of course they are.

As to your series of questions, the answer is yes to most of them including the question of greed. Greed is a big factor when it comes to unions, workers and owners. See Milton Friedman's comments on greed. As to your comments about a jaded public, sure the public is jaded, they are jaded about lots of things including unions.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-03, 08:08, said:

Okay. How do we do that?

We??

Not sure we can do much, this is up to the workers and owners to work out or not work out and fail and be destroyed and replaced. Again the big main point is not that mistakes are made or that failures happen. The big main point is that of creative destruction. This is the part that people object to and demand govt step in and save them from destruction and replacement.

[awm]

Here's a try at explaining the issues of US education with a comparison to bridge:

Arnold Schwarzenegger is appointed head of USBF. He announced that instead of trials, prospective members of the team will be given a test of 100 opening lead problems. The six people most successful on the 100 actual hands (double dummy lead effectiveness) will be the team. Further, he will pay ten million dollars to Kobe Bryant and Michael Phelps to develop a bidding system which all US national team members will be required to play. Psychs or deviations from the system will be punished severely with fines and eventually dismissal.

No surprise, the national team does not perform better under this management. But it's hailed as a great success because it saves money! The ten million for a bidding system is viewed as an off-books one time cost, and otherwise we save by not holding trials. Further, the more established pros balk at the conditions and the weaker players who end up on the team are willing to pay their own way!

Nonetheless, in four years Arnold will be replaced by Rahm Emanuel, who will change the 100 opening lead problems to 80 "whats your call" problems (since bidding is obviously more important than leads). He will spend another eight million "off the books" to get the bidding system revised by Simone Biles and John Elway. And of course any small improvement in results will be hailed as a great victory!

In eight more years it will be declared that we ought to reform the system and Arnold will be back on again...

Can you see why bridge pros might consider unionizing in such situation? And why they might be skeptical of leadership and attempts to "make it easier to dismiss players from the team"?

[mike777]

awm, on 2017-January-03, 10:08, said:

Here's a try at explaining the issues of US education with a comparison to bridge:

Arnold Schwarzenegger is appointed head of USBF. He announced that instead of trials, prospective members of the team will be given a test of 100 opening lead problems. The six people most successful on the 100 actual hands (double dummy lead effectiveness) will be the team. Further, he will pay ten million dollars to Kobe Bryant and Michael Phelps to develop a bidding system which all US national team members will be required to play. Psychs or deviations from the system will be punished severely with fines and eventually dismissal.

No surprise, the national team does not perform better under this management. But it's hailed as a great success because it saves money! The ten million for a bidding system is viewed as an off-books one time cost, and otherwise we save by not holding trials. Further, the more established pros balk at the conditions and the weaker players who end up on the team are willing to pay their own way!

Nonetheless, in four years Arnold will be replaced by Rahm Emanuel, who will change the 100 opening lead problems to 80 "whats your call" problems (since bidding is obviously more important than leads). He will spend another eight million "off the books" to get the bidding system revised by Simone Biles and John Elway. And of course any small improvement in results will be hailed as a great victory!

In eight more years it will be declared that we ought to reform the system and Arnold will be back on again...

Can you see why bridge pros might consider unionizing in such situation? And why they might be skeptical of leadership and attempts to "make it easier to dismiss players from the team"?

Adam you seem to have miss the point of your own post, the really big main point. It was not the issue of unions or no unions. It is the fact of having a King of Education or a King or Queen of Bridge, of all that economic and political power in one person. You present an example of all the more reason to allow the education department to be destroyed if it is in failure mode and be replaced by something or several somethings. Once again the issue is not that mistakes are made or that there are failed schools, it is that that are not allowed to be destroyed and replaced. It is the continued emphasis on having more and more economic and political power placed in the same very few hands.


As to the side issue of whether bridge pros or teaching pros should be permitted to create unions, sure.

[kenberg]

Analogies can be tough to follow up n, and Adam's is a doozy!. I think if i were a pro I would not so much ne thinking of unionizing but thinking more of chucking the whole system or, and this may ring true with Adam, moving to a different country.

At any rate, when I mentioned bridge in terms of education, what I had in mind was along the following: If I want to learn "eight ever, nine never' , the "rule of eleven", the "rule of fifteen" and the rule of this and that, then certainly I can learn this online or from a book. If I want to know how to think about a bridge hand, the personal guidance of a decent player might be best. It would not have to be Bob Hamman, but it should be someone whose conception of bridge goes beyond memorizing a set ot rules.

I think the issue of unions is complicated. I grew up in the middle of the last century, my father belonged to the Carpenter's Union, I think unions playeda major role in making life better for my family and for many families. I will try to get my thoughts together and say more.

[Al_U_Card]

Why unions? Their rise was based on getting the workers a fair shake. A living wage and remuneration commensurate with contribution. Ideally, profit-sharing and co-management. Sharing in capital investment, where applicable and possible. Protection of workers, from exploitation and dangerous working conditions.
It certainly wasn't, initially, about protecting jobs or individuals in their jobs. Co-management would see that poorer performers (diluting the equity and remuneration of other workers, management and ownership) would be assisted, demoted or eliminated based on standard criteria developed by all parties.
Clearly, union-busting is a product of concentration of wealth (in the hands of ownership, private or share-holders) and the exploitation of the work-force. The saving of jobs comes from efficient and productive employment. Make a better widget, for less, and you have your market and your profit. All the incentive needed, when shared on a basis commensurate with risk and effort involved.
Human greed is the monkey-wrench in the works.

[Winstonm]

There is an old Bols Bridge Tip by Bob Hamman that applies equally to most human endeavors. It went like this (emphasis added):

Quote

"If you ever want to amount to anything in this game you must build up a picture of the unseen hands. The idea is to know what the problem is before you try to solve it."

This advice applies to more than a bridge hand. Destroying unions is not the solution because unions alone are not the problem. As with most complex bridge hands and life problems, we have to look deeper to find genuine solutions. It might help to ask why unions began in the first place. My answer would be a quest for fair treatment.

That, then, to me is the unseen hand - fairness. How do we achieve a reasonable degree of fairness among owners and workers? I would suggest that a good solution would start with the creation of a common goal that benefits everyone involved. It may well be that Bernie Sanders' idea of shared ownership makes the best sense.

[awm]

mike777, on 2017-January-03, 10:35, said:

Adam you seem to have miss the point of your own post, the really big main point. It was not the issue of unions or no unions. It is the fact of having a King of Education or a King or Queen of Bridge, of all that economic and political power in one person. You present an example of all the more reason to allow the education department to be destroyed if it is in failure mode and be replaced by something or several somethings. Once again the issue is not that mistakes are made or that there are failed schools, it is that that are not allowed to be destroyed and replaced. It is the continued emphasis on having more and more economic and political power placed in the same very few hands.

Clearly the true problem in my post was existence of the USBF. If we were to abolish it and let each US state select its own bridge team things would obviously be much better! Of course we will replace Arnold with whoever is the state Governor and Bryant-Phelps with appropriate local athletes.

Or just maybe... We could let bridge players run the bridge league? And pick teams based on bridge instead of some exam? Naah, anyone can play bridge, look how old and fat some of those players are! Much better to let "leaders" and "winners" run the process right?

[billw55]

While unions do sometimes carry their advocacy too far, their existence is essential to our society. We already know what labor conditions are like in the absence of unions, it is a fact of history (and the present, in some places), we don't need to speculate and we don't want to go back to that. Not to mention the economic benefits of an expanded middle class.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2017-January-03, 13:15, said:

While unions do sometimes carry their advocacy too far, their existence is essential to our society. We already know what labor conditions are like in the absence of unions, it is a fact of history (and the present, in some places), we don't need to speculate and we don't want to go back to that. Not to mention the economic benefits of an expanded middle class.

Good post


Hopefully no poster is advocating for a complete ban on unions. I suppose that moves the discussion to when if ever union membership should be banned when it comes to public employee unions. For example some countries allow their military to be part of a union. Some complain that public unions give money/support for candidates that agree with union goals but that seems ok to me. But then I think it is just fine for companies to give money/support to candidates who agree with their goals.