PM Series: Question 22

[RR1997]

The right to individual autonomy is important, even if it threatens collective security: Usually Agree

The government should penalize organizations that practice outsourcing: Agree (critical issue)

Giving faith-based charities the same government resources as secular organizations is a good idea: Disagree (not critical)

We should increase foreign aid to countries struggling with poverty: Agree (not critical)

We should increase funding for education: Agree (critical issue)

Heterosexual couples should receive higher marital recognition than same-sex couples: Disagree (critical issue)

Overall, free trade hurts more than it helps: Disagree (critical issue)

We should reduce the number of government programs substantially: Disagree (critical issue)

Abortion should be illegal or very heavily restricted: Disagree (critical issue)

The government should fund museums, theaters, and other cultural institutions that are unable to survive independently: Agree (not critical)

The government should subsidize health insurance for those who cannot easily afford it: Agree (critical issue)

The government should work to reduce children's exposure to offensive radio and television content: Disagree (not critical)

It is unfair that wealthier people pay higher tax rates: Disagree (critical issue)

The minimum wage should be raised: Agree (critical issue)

Marijuana should be legalized: Agree (not critical)

Society focuses too much on forcing equality at the expense of real merit: Disagree (not critical)

Violating individual rights is acceptable when it comes to fighting terrorism: Disagree (critical issue)

Current levels of government regulation on industry are excessive: Disagree (critical issue)

The government should provide basic needs for all people: Agree (critical issue)

 The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes: Disagree (not critical)

We should reduce the difficulty of immigration: Agree (critical issue)


My opinion:
Usually disagree (not a crit. issue)

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Disagree/Critical

[Redalgo]

Usually Agree / Not Critical

[AggregateDemand]

Disagree/Non-Critical

People who don't work eventually get fired. It's gravity in the labor market. Unions can try to fight it with labor laws and shareholder intimidation, but their jobs will get sent out-of-state or overseas, and automation will take more jobs. Unions are supposed to be providing a valuable service to the company and to the employees. Strike has zero value-added to anyone in the long run.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Agree/Cr1tikal

[TNF]

Disagree/Non-Critical

People who don't work eventually get fired. It's gravity in the labor market. Unions can try to fight it with labor laws and shareholder intimidation, but their jobs will get sent out-of-state or overseas, and automation will take more jobs. Unions are supposed to be providing a valuable service to the company and to the employees. Strike has zero value-added to anyone in the long run.

Unions are not supposed to provide a service to employers. The point of a union is to act as the representative of the worker and as an intractable enemy of the employer in every possible instance, because the union is supposed to seek higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions for its members. That's what a union is. Unions that are buddy-buddy with the employer might as well be company unions (like the UAW has basically become, at this point) because they don't represent the people who pay dues to them and elect their leadership.

I selected 'agree / critical', because the right to strike should be inviolable, no matter what industry it is in and no matter who goes out on the picket line. Scabbing should be banned and companies should be forced into a position by the workers whereby they have to accede to their demands. If they don't, or if they try to break the strike or the union, the workers should be able to seize control of the company and run it themselves.

[Never]

Disagree/Critical

[Goldwater]

Disagree

[AggregateDemand]

Unions are not supposed to provide a service to employers. The point of a union is to act as the representative of the worker and as an intractable enemy of the employer in every possible instance, because the union is supposed to seek higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions for its members. That's what a union is. Unions that are buddy-buddy with the employer might as well be company unions (like the UAW has basically become, at this point) because they don't represent the people who pay dues to them and elect their leadership.

It's comforting to know, especially for all of those who've lost their manufacturing jobs, that you are dedicated to the moral purity of the labor movement, regardless of the outcomes achieved.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Disagree/Critical

[TJ in Oregon]

Agree/Non-Critical

What's the point in a strike if they can fire you? On the other side of things, I also think it's acceptable for businesses to hire temporary replacements during a strike. A strike is meant to be a war of attrition to see who can bear the other's absence without folding as a way to ensure compensation accurately reflects the value of the workers to the company. As such it ought not be rigged in favor of either side. Allowing striking workers to be fired rigs the system in favor of management.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Usually agree. Critical issue.

[Supersonic]

Disagree, non-critical

[TNF]

Unions are not supposed to provide a service to employers. The point of a union is to act as the representative of the worker and as an intractable enemy of the employer in every possible instance, because the union is supposed to seek higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions for its members. That's what a union is. Unions that are buddy-buddy with the employer might as well be company unions (like the UAW has basically become, at this point) because they don't represent the people who pay dues to them and elect their leadership.

It's comforting to know, especially for all of those who've lost their manufacturing jobs, that you are dedicated to the moral purity of the labor movement, regardless of the outcomes achieved.

It's comforting to know that you continue to be a vapid idiot with no conception of what working is actually like in the real world. If a union bends over backwards for the boss, it might as well not be there, because it's betraying the workers who pay it dues. End of story. The fact that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas has less to do with the fact that unions acted antagonistically vis a vie their employers in the period in which they were strongest (in fact, with few exceptions, the union movement in the United States was always more conservative than its European or Japanese counterparts, and thus was a lot more willing to work with their employers, partly as a result of the purge of the labor movement of communists and other radicals in the late 1940s and early 1950s) and more to do with the fact that employers don't like paying high wages and would rather leave the country than treat their employees like human beings.

I don't think they should be able to move capital out of the country, personally. If you want to relocate production elsewhere, you should have every bit of your productive capacity here at home liquidated and given to your workforce and given them a shot at running it, while you should have to start from scratch wherever it is you decide to move. And of course, if you relocate, you should face every kind of nuisance regulation in the book in order to get that product back to the United States. If you turn your back on our workers, we should turn our back on you, and discriminate against your products, deny you federal contracts, freeze your assets, etc.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Strongly Agree/Very Critical

It is imperative that workers have the bargaining chip of strike in their pocket when (usually it seems) fighting their employers for fair wages, hours, vacation time, etc. 

[ElectionsGuy]

Disagree, non-critical

[dead0man]

Disagree, non-critical

[Vega]

Usually Agree/Not a Critical Issue.

[IceSpear]

Agree/critical

[Miles]

Usually agree/not critical.

[TDAS04]

Usually agree/not critical.

[DemPGH]

Agree - Critical.

There are risks and sacrifices in striking, and the option needs to be available to strike without reprisal to ensure balance and fairness.

[windjammer]

Agree - Critical.

There are risks and sacrifices in striking, and the option needs to be available to strike without reprisal to ensure balance and fairness.

[H. Ross Peron]

Agree/critical

[AggregateDemand]

It's comforting to know that you continue to be a vapid idiot with no conception of what working is actually like in the real world. If a union bends over backwards for the boss, it might as well not be there, because it's betraying the workers who pay it dues.

I think you've identified yourself as the vapid idiot with no employment experience (or you've learned nothing).

No one bends over backwards. People trade. Strike is not trade leverage, nor does it promote economic growth. It's a form of extortion--give us what we want or we will harm you. What is the natural reaction of white collar workers when their careers, benefits, etc, as well as the economic well-being of their homeland, are threatened by union strikes at their employer?

If unions weren't run by morons, perhaps they'd have more members and create fewer enemies. Maybe their management of legacy costs wouldn't require taxpayer bailouts.

You're just like any other addict. The intervention is an affront. Masochism is your source of positive affirmation. Get help. Stop failing.