Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
...given how small a percentage of the US labor force is unionized, I take exception with the union people being lumped in with "American workers" the way Obama does it. It's deliberately misleading.
|
Problem is, most of the big industries that are getting bailed out have two major things in common: the employees are all union workers; and the CEOs are overpaid by at leas a factor of 100. So yeah, we still have to consider the union workers representative of American workers, especially in the major industrial companies that have been getting the bail-outs and even in Chrysler, whose total demise would be bad, but which would be worse if all the workers took too big a hit.
Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Besides, one point which many people never stop to think about is that forcing the U.S. consumer to pay for more union work or products actually doesn't help the consumer, it penalizes them because of the higher cost of union labor, etc. If you help unions forcing people to support them, it certainly falls on the backs of the actual "poor" and statistically larger "American worker" force because they have to pay more for products.
|
Odd, but most people would not mind paying the worker and would more likely find fault with a Board of Directors that focuses on paying the CEO as much as they possibly can and making products that are sure to drive them into eventual bankruptcy.
No question that the union complicates the business equation and that unions will sometimes strangle the company that they depend on. But that's irrelevant in this discussion because bad management over more than twenty years is what sunk them. I'm just glad the leisure class didn't just siphon off all the money and leave the workers with nothing of their actual earnings.
David