Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Tuesday that labor unions were the strongest force for “good government” in the United States.
Grayson was appearing on a live webcast with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka to promote a new website (www.paywatch.org) that publicizes executive pay for the nation’s largest companies.
Both said they wanted to bring to light large corporate paychecks to rally support for financial regulatory reform bills being considered on Capitol Hill, where Grayson said he saw bank lobbyists working their influence on members of both parties to elicit favorable outcomes.
Unions also work their influence on members of both parties to elicit favorable outcomes and they are no less corrupt than anyone else. And they need not be involved in governing
Something has to offset corporate corruption, I say let it be unions!
Iv'e been a member of two unions in the past, and if there were a union where I work now, I would gladly join!
Maybe then the workers would be given a fair share of the pie,
Who's pie are you talking about. If you work for acme then the pie belongs to acme and you do not deserve any portion of acme's pie. If you want to sell your labor to them then come to an agreement. If you cannot then go somewhere else. No one owes you a portion of any pie. Such mentality is marxist.
I love how the connies label any form of progressive views as Marxist. It gives a new meaning to the term "blessed ignorance." Unrestrained Capitalism and Communism are both destined to fail for the same reason- human greed. A system that is mostly capitalist is the best, as long as the capitalist system is subservient to the public good.
RS did not simply talk about restrained capitalism. He spoke of a fair piece of the pie he does not own. That is marxism if that happens to be progressive that is your issue not mine.
I'm part of the company that makes the product we sell.
I am a important part of the company.
I have invested my time here and I think the company owes me a piece of the profit that I help make.
A good union just looks out for my welfare.
I see a point in that, if unrestrained, a company will pay the people who actually produce the product or service as little as possible, without regard to the worker's welfare. That's the upside of a union. The downside is if the union demands too much, it can bankrupt the company. Also, the investors in the company take the risk as to whether the company makes a profit or not. So, my question to you is, how do you balance restraining the tendency of businesses to exploit workers with the right of the company/owners/investors to make money?
If you didn't like the wage the company agreed to pay you, then you aren't forced to work there. If you think you deserve a piece of the profit from making a widget, then start your own widget company.
This is America. You are free to do either one of those things.
It is not ok if the owner does not want to negotiate in that manner. But the real debate here is not the manner in which labor negotiates. It is the liberal position that the employee is owed something other than what is agreed. Some how the employee deserves a bigger piece of the pie. you are not owed any piece of the pie. The pie is the owners. The paycheck is yours.