~~~ Worst Philosophy in the History of Mankind ~~~

[Arising_uk]

Of course, you realize that if unions didn't have the government forcing employers to deal with them, there wouldn't be any unions. You do understand that, don't you?

The history of such movements shows you to be wrong.

[bobevenson]

Of course, you realize that if unions didn't have the government forcing employers to deal with them, there wouldn't be any unions. You do understand that, don't you?

The history of such movements shows you to be wrong.

I'm not talking about socialist Europe, where the government runs everything (into the ground, I might add), I'm talking about the USA, where without government support, unionism, which is already on its deathbed, would be as dead as a doornail.

[Arising_uk]

I'm not talking about socialist Europe, where the government runs everything (into the ground, I might add), I'm talking about the USA, where without government support, unionism, which is already on its deathbed, would be as dead as a doornail.

You can add what you like bob as its usually wrong when talking about Europe. I'm talking about the history of unionism and its been pretty much the same in all countries. If you are talking about the acts in America that made it a legal right to organise a union if you can then I'd say that shows that before this time govt was no friend of unionism.

Are you saying there is a law in America that one must join a union? That a firm must have a union?

[bobevenson]

I believe the U.S. government demands collective bargaining with unions. This must be the case or companies would tell the unions to drop dead. I'm sure I can document this, but why don't you get off your ass and document that I'm wrong?

[bobevenson]

From Wikipedia
In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. This act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy on, harass, or terminate the employment of workers because of their union membership or to retaliate against them for engaging in organizing campaigns or other "concerted activities," to form company unions, or to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees. It is also illegal to require any employee to join a union as a condition of employment.[7] Unions are also exempt from antitrust law in the hope that members may collectively fix a higher price for their labor.

It took me 11 minutes to prove my point.

[Arising_uk]

It took me 11 minutes to prove my point.

How does this bit, "It is also illegal to require any employee to join a union as a condition of employment." prove your point?

All you have shown is that if there is a union then the employers must deal with it.

[bobevenson]

It took me 11 minutes to prove my point.

How does this bit, "It is also illegal to require any employee to join a union as a condition of employment." prove your point?

All you have shown is that if there is a union then the employers must deal with it.

That's my whole point, that the government should not require employers to deal with unions at all. That's government oppression, pure and simple, and is the antithesis of free-market capitalism.

[Arising_uk]

...
That's my whole point, that the government should not require employers to deal with unions at all. That's government oppression, pure and simple, and is the antithesis of free-market capitalism.

Nope, it was a response to the social trouble not doing so caused, something you say a govt should do. Me, I agree with you as you're solution will allow true activism to return once the worker really understands their postion.
p.s.
Since you never say what 'free-market capitalism' it is you support I'll assume laissez faire.

[bobevenson]

Since you never say what 'free-market capitalism' it is you support I'll assume laissez faire.

"The practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, especially with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action."
Yes, that pretty much explains it, but, of course, that's something a socialist could never understand.

[Arising_uk]

Yes, that pretty much explains it, but, of course, that's something a socialist could never understand.

A socialist understands it very well, as experience has shown it includes immoral behaviours just to make a profit.

[bobevenson]

Yes, that pretty much explains it, but, of course, that's something a socialist could never understand.

A socialist understands it very well, as experience has shown it includes immoral behaviours just to make a profit.

Care to cite a few examples? And, of course, the worst part is that somebody might actually be making a profit on something, God forbid!

[Arising_uk]

Care to cite a few examples?

The adulteration of bread, the use of substandard building materials and the Libor fix are examples from the recent and far past.

Nothing wrong with making a profit, it's how you make the profit that you're not concerned with.

[bobevenson]

Care to cite a few examples?

The adulteration of bread, the use of substandard building materials and the Libor fix are examples from the recent and far past.

Nothing wrong with making a profit, it's how you make the profit that you're not concerned with.

Profit is profit, and fraud is fraud, two different things, and fraud and should be dealt with immediately by the government.

[Arising_uk]

Profit is profit, and fraud is fraud, two different things, and fraud and should be dealt with immediately by the government.

Not fraud bob as theres no rule against building shoddy shit and selling it to make a profit in laissez-faire capitalism.

This'll be this government of yours that has no employees but are all in hock to the profiteers?

Under your laissez-faire capitalism there would be no interference in such things as according to it the market should sort such things out by customers not using them. Such a system would also do what all laissez-faire capitalist systems do and thats cause monopolies but under your system I guess an anti-trust department would be interference and also not exist.

[bobevenson]

Profit is profit, and fraud is fraud, two different things, and fraud and should be dealt with immediately by the government.

Not fraud bob as theres no rule against building shoddy shit and selling it to make a profit in laissez-faire capitalism.

Spoken like a true socialist, who thinks the fucking government should be the arbiter of the marketplace instead of the consumer!