Reagan handling of PATCO strike vs Trump handling of the refugee crises

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Unions did do good, in protecting their workers against a lot of Reagan's right wing policies that is true.

Unions, are of necessity, as a way so that employees can have power against the selfish wishes many a case of the corporate industry or their employer.

Government Protections should apply to all workers, unions help in the maintainece of that, not getting fired unrightfully, making sure you get your proper wage. Unions should be properly, and rightfully expanded in service industry jobs, are occupied by those who would be working class two-decade a back.

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

So the government should legislate, as was done with industrial/craft unions in the 30's.

Why rely on the regulations of unions reliant on government support when you can guarantee protections through legislation?

[Intell]

Unions did do good, in protecting their workers against a lot of Reagan's right wing policies that is true.

Unions, are of necessity, as a way so that employees can have power against the selfish wishes many a case of the corporate industry or their employer.

Government Protections should apply to all workers, unions help in the maintainece of that, not getting fired unrightfully, making sure you get your proper wage. Unions should be properly, and rightfully expanded in service industry jobs, are occupied by those who would be working class two-decade a back.

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

So the government should legislate, as was done with industrial/craft unions in the 30's.

Why rely on the regulations of unions reliant on government support when you can guarantee protections through legislation?

Because unions guarantee all it's members maintain high wages, and protection from exploitation, that the government cannot always do. When unions were strong, the american working class had high wages and good jobs, now you can extend such unionisation in service orientated jobs, and have them well-paying.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Unions did do good, in protecting their workers against a lot of Reagan's right wing policies that is true.

Unions, are of necessity, as a way so that employees can have power against the selfish wishes many a case of the corporate industry or their employer.

Government Protections should apply to all workers, unions help in the maintainece of that, not getting fired unrightfully, making sure you get your proper wage. Unions should be properly, and rightfully expanded in service industry jobs, are occupied by those who would be working class two-decade a back.

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

So the government should legislate, as was done with industrial/craft unions in the 30's.

Why rely on the regulations of unions reliant on government support when you can guarantee protections through legislation?

Because unions guarantee all it's members maintain high wages, and protection from exploitation, that the government cannot always do. When unions were strong, the american working class had high wages and good jobs, now you can extend such unionisation in service orientated jobs, and have them well-paying.

How are unions so much stronger then governments? I have given multiple reasons why it's so impractical to unionize service industry jobs.

[Intell]

Unions did do good, in protecting their workers against a lot of Reagan's right wing policies that is true.

Unions, are of necessity, as a way so that employees can have power against the selfish wishes many a case of the corporate industry or their employer.

Government Protections should apply to all workers, unions help in the maintainece of that, not getting fired unrightfully, making sure you get your proper wage. Unions should be properly, and rightfully expanded in service industry jobs, are occupied by those who would be working class two-decade a back.

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

So the government should legislate, as was done with industrial/craft unions in the 30's.

Why rely on the regulations of unions reliant on government support when you can guarantee protections through legislation?

Because unions guarantee all it's members maintain high wages, and protection from exploitation, that the government cannot always do. When unions were strong, the american working class had high wages and good jobs, now you can extend such unionisation in service orientated jobs, and have them well-paying.

How are unions so much stronger then governments? I have given multiple reasons why it's so impractical to unionize service industry jobs.

Unions have a much easier time, protecting it's worker's, from being fired unduly, while there are hurdles for the government to get involved.

Unions help and create a strong middle class, in centuries, where unionisation is widespread, or union rights are protected, there is a strong, well-paid working class (or middle class using US terms.)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Unions did do good, in protecting their workers against a lot of Reagan's right wing policies that is true.

Unions, are of necessity, as a way so that employees can have power against the selfish wishes many a case of the corporate industry or their employer.

Government Protections should apply to all workers, unions help in the maintainece of that, not getting fired unrightfully, making sure you get your proper wage. Unions should be properly, and rightfully expanded in service industry jobs, are occupied by those who would be working class two-decade a back.

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

So the government should legislate, as was done with industrial/craft unions in the 30's.

Why rely on the regulations of unions reliant on government support when you can guarantee protections through legislation?

Because unions guarantee all it's members maintain high wages, and protection from exploitation, that the government cannot always do. When unions were strong, the american working class had high wages and good jobs, now you can extend such unionisation in service orientated jobs, and have them well-paying.

How are unions so much stronger then governments? I have given multiple reasons why it's so impractical to unionize service industry jobs.

Unions have a much easier time, protecting it's worker's, from being fired unduly, while there are hurdles for the government to get involved.

Unions help and create a strong middle class, in centuries, where unionisation is widespread, or union rights are protected, there is a strong, well-paid working class (or middle class using US terms.)

Unions were the one of the devices that created the middle class, but I have previously stated reasons why they aren't a practical way to raise standard of living now. If you aren't going to discuss those reasons, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

[Intell]

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

-----

Teens should not be needed to be in labor unions, they also should only be allowed to work for very little hours. The jobs argument doesn't add up, as if you require once upon entry, for a person to be unionised, or the entire industry, a government should legislative such things, as I said before. There are 2.1 millions workers in the international service union in Canada+US, in Australia it has 110, 000 members, which I see no reason why it can't be expanded. In Scandinavian centuries + I think Belgium this is the case, and unions give workers a reasonable wage, and employment protection.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

-----

Teens should not be needed to be in labor unions, they also should only be allowed to work for very little hours. The jobs argument doesn't add up, as if you require once upon entry, for a person to be unionised, or the entire industry, a government should legislative such things, as I said before. There are 2.1 millions workers in the international service union in Canada+US, in Australia it has 110, 000 members, which I see no reason why it can't be expanded. In Scandinavian centuries + I think Belgium this is the case, and unions give workers a reasonable wage, and employment protection.

So you admit that the government has to require union membership to make these things viable?  What is the point of making an organization to improve work benefits if you have to make as many laws to make it work as you would to just enshrine protections into the law?

[Intell]

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

-----

Teens should not be needed to be in labor unions, they also should only be allowed to work for very little hours. The jobs argument doesn't add up, as if you require once upon entry, for a person to be unionised, or the entire industry, a government should legislative such things, as I said before. There are 2.1 millions workers in the international service union in Canada+US, in Australia it has 110, 000 members, which I see no reason why it can't be expanded. In Scandinavian centuries + I think Belgium this is the case, and unions give workers a reasonable wage, and employment protection.

So you admit that the government has to require union membership to make these things viable?  What is the point of making an organization to improve work benefits if you have to make as many laws to make it work as you would to just enshrine protections into the law?

Because the government can easily ignore worker's rights, while unions are a safeguard against that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

-----

Teens should not be needed to be in labor unions, they also should only be allowed to work for very little hours. The jobs argument doesn't add up, as if you require once upon entry, for a person to be unionised, or the entire industry, a government should legislative such things, as I said before. There are 2.1 millions workers in the international service union in Canada+US, in Australia it has 110, 000 members, which I see no reason why it can't be expanded. In Scandinavian centuries + I think Belgium this is the case, and unions give workers a reasonable wage, and employment protection.

So you admit that the government has to require union membership to make these things viable?  What is the point of making an organization to improve work benefits if you have to make as many laws to make it work as you would to just enshrine protections into the law?

Because the government can easily ignore worker's rights, while unions are a safeguard against that.

Because unions stood up to Reagan so well

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

-----

Teens should not be needed to be in labor unions, they also should only be allowed to work for very little hours. The jobs argument doesn't add up, as if you require once upon entry, for a person to be unionised, or the entire industry, a government should legislative such things, as I said before. There are 2.1 millions workers in the international service union in Canada+US, in Australia it has 110, 000 members, which I see no reason why it can't be expanded. In Scandinavian centuries + I think Belgium this is the case, and unions give workers a reasonable wage, and employment protection.

So you admit that the government has to require union membership to make these things viable?  What is the point of making an organization to improve work benefits if you have to make as many laws to make it work as you would to just enshrine protections into the law?

Because the government can easily ignore worker's rights, while unions are a safeguard against that.

Because unions stood up to Reagan so well

Especially considering that these unions would be reliant on government support anyway.

[Intell]

Because of many factors in unskilled service work(the huge labor market, the amount of teens who enter for a year or two, the amount of general part time employees, the amount of the workforce that shifts between jobs constantly, the replacability of service workers, etc.), a service industry union wouldn't have the power/ability to effectively do union things like negociate or bargain without a level of government support that would allow legislating these things instead.

-----

Teens should not be needed to be in labor unions, they also should only be allowed to work for very little hours. The jobs argument doesn't add up, as if you require once upon entry, for a person to be unionised, or the entire industry, a government should legislative such things, as I said before. There are 2.1 millions workers in the international service union in Canada+US, in Australia it has 110, 000 members, which I see no reason why it can't be expanded. In Scandinavian centuries + I think Belgium this is the case, and unions give workers a reasonable wage, and employment protection.

So you admit that the government has to require union membership to make these things viable?  What is the point of making an organization to improve work benefits if you have to make as many laws to make it work as you would to just enshrine protections into the law?

Because the government can easily ignore worker's rights, while unions are a safeguard against that.

Because unions stood up to Reagan so well

Especially considering that these unions would be reliant on government support anyway.

Actually they did for the workers of each respective union.