4 ms·

Who are you people, displaying such cavalier ignorance of labor rights movements and dynamics?

• blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  There would be more people employed, if not for "labor rights movements". Look at the Longshoremen. They basically closed off ports in the U.S. to any workers but their chosen elite few. How is that in line with "labor rights"? What about theatrical unions? I have been in theater, and the guys running the lights and curtains charged a fortune by the hour. They made it prohibitive for small nonprofit theatrical companies of which I was a member to put on shows in the big city. They wouldn't even raise the curtain a second time to standing ovation. Bastards. What about the drivers' unions in New York City? My grandfather had to close down his shoe jobber business back in the Sixties because of them and their onerous rules. It basically killed him. Sorry but I have no sympathy for unions or union organizing. For all their songs and high flying rhetoric, they have caused untold damage to our economy and our society.
  • ThomPete 11y ago
    just like there are plenty of bad companies out there, there are bad unions too. That doesent mean unionizing is a bad thing. But I guess you think its ok for companies to legally lobby congress to get their whishes and needs legalized but not for normal workers or contractors to. Sorry but i have no sympathy for such a view.
  • sangnoir 11y ago
    > There would be more people employed, if not for "labor rights movements". That metric (number of people employed) does not really mean anything by itself. Here are more ideas that could lead to "more people being employed": * make child labor legal again * get rid of work safety regulations * remove minimum wage * make indentured servitude legal