Boeing Controversy Surrounding NLRB vs Boeing: Analysis and Opinions

[Al68]

...enlightened self-interest (that's not a positive thing).

I think Adam Smith and John Locke (major Enlightenment leaders) would beg to differ (assuming no force or fraud is used).

 

[russ_watters]

I think Adam Smith and John Locke (major Enlightenment leaders) would beg to differ (assuming no force or fraud is used).

I didn't say it can't create a functional economic system, but it isn't a positive moral position (it is at best morally neutral), which is what turbo-1 was trying to convey. He contradicted himself when he said union members do things because they are right rather than doing them because they benefit themselves.

 

[mege]

We "thugs" were offered (freely) space and facilities on the campus of a private school. If you can support your claim that all union employees are "thugs", bring it on. Are Wisconsin elementary school teachers and social workers "thugs"? Since they brought their children to the protests, it is highly unlikely that they planned violence. Or is your rhetoric drawn from Limbaugh, Beck, and other idiots who need to divide US citizens along artificial lines to suit your beliefs?

In many states a union forces/pushes/requires any employee within its scope to be a due paying part of its membership because supposedly that employee is 'benefiting from all the union activism has done in the past and will benefit from all the union will do in the future.' But union members are allowed to separate themselves from organized negative incidents? This is the exact reason many support right-to-work situations in states. If a worker can decide their level of involvement, the union's true power can be established and can be manipulated by making sure its policies and actions are in line with what the workers actually want. As it stands the unions cannot do any wrong because there is no recourse in many situations. Workers cannot leave the union and keep their status quo job. They are forced to either 1) quit their job or 2) dissent openly (and take on shame from their zombie coworkers). So it creates a snowball effect of limited accountability internally to the union. They control their memberships jobs and can do so amorally because of zero meaningful feedback. The extremists within the group are not kept in check by the moderation that would come by a control of choice (ie: voluntary participation).

All that being said, I don't think that everyone with a UAW patch on their shoulder is a thug. However, I do believe that many turn a blind eye to the negatives that their fellow union members, union leadership and organization perpetrates because they provide short-term job stability and fear shame if they dissent. I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that every union member is an evil-doer, but there does come a certain responsibility that is not being (openly) felt by the union membership as a whole. I understand not wanting to rock the boat and not stick out (as unions are definitely against freethinkers and overachievers as is proven by 'solidarity'), but there comes a point where you need to take responsibility for what is being supported by your dues.