3 ms·

There is nothing to restrain the union? You just described how the state can not go out of business, can use force, and can set laws how it likes. Certainly in

There is nothing to restrain the union? You just described how the state can not go out of business, can use force, and can set laws how it likes. Certainly in my country the state has spent much time and effort using these powers to restrain and curtail unions. If unions are unrestricted it sure is odd how all the teachers I know have poor conditions and poor pay.

burfog 10y ago
Because a company can go out of business, a normal union must resist demands which will cause this. If the union asks for too much, then everybody will be unemployed. With the state, there is no such worry. The union can demand retirement at age 30, $200 per hour, 15-hour work weeks, and a pension that is 110% of normal working pay. Why not? The state can pay it; all they have to do is seize assets from the citizens. They simply raise taxes. The police will use guns to deal with any who refuse. (see Puerto Rico and Greece) When the state is in control of currency, there is also the option to just print money. (see Venezuela and Zimbabwe) This too steals from the people.
- JetSetWilly 10y ago
  The union can demand it but they won't get it. Why do you think states just go around spinelessly giving in to fabricated and absurd union demands? I just read this in the news too, amusingly enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132
  - burfog 10y ago
    That example... is a shocking display of spine. I've really never seen that before. I guess there are exceptions, or at least one exception. Meanwhile, lots of places are having trouble because they caved to the unions. A couple more notable ones are California and Detroit. Note that voters are free to take the side of the employees, either by sympathy (dumb) or to get better-qualified employees. Instead of demanding that unions be legal, simply demand that the state provide good pay. (not that you get a direct say in either, but you can lobby and otherwise make it a campaign issue)

burfog 10y ago

Because a company can go out of business, a normal union must resist demands which will cause this. If the union asks for too much, then everybody will be unemployed. With the state, there is no such worry. The union can demand retirement at age 30, $200 per hour, 15-hour work weeks, and a pension that is 110% of normal working pay. Why not? The state can pay it; all they have to do is seize assets from the citizens. They simply raise taxes. The police will use guns to deal with any who refuse. (see Puerto Rico and Greece) When the state is in control of currency, there is also the option to just print money. (see Venezuela and Zimbabwe) This too steals from the people.

JetSetWilly 10y ago
The union can demand it but they won't get it. Why do you think states just go around spinelessly giving in to fabricated and absurd union demands? I just read this in the news too, amusingly enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-36305132
- burfog 10y ago
  That example... is a shocking display of spine. I've really never seen that before. I guess there are exceptions, or at least one exception. Meanwhile, lots of places are having trouble because they caved to the unions. A couple more notable ones are California and Detroit. Note that voters are free to take the side of the employees, either by sympathy (dumb) or to get better-qualified employees. Instead of demanding that unions be legal, simply demand that the state provide good pay. (not that you get a direct say in either, but you can lobby and otherwise make it a campaign issue)