Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

The concept of unionism is not Socialism.

See the 2nd paragraph of this link of the Democratic Socialists of America:
http://dsausa.org/about/history.html

"Socialists were influential in the leadership of some major American Federation
of Labor (AFL) unions, as well as in independent unions such as the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers. Socialist and non-Socialist radicals in the Industrial Workers
of the World (IWW) pioneered in the organization of unions among immigrant
workers in mass production industries..."

Or how about this little gem from the Socialist Labor Party http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

"Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in
Socialist Industrial Unions."

Although, in the past, Socialists have tried to infiltrate unions,
sometimes successfully. At its core, unionism is basedupon
capitalistic principals.

You may have listened a little too much to Joan Baez singin' 'bout Joe Hill lately. ;-)

Coprorations are a conglomeration of individual investm,ents
amassed to form one large enterprise, larger than on any of the
individual investors could intiate. This brings economy
of scale, and masses the corporate entity's
economic power.

You seem to be trying to say that *all* corporations are trying to corner the market
on labor. If they *ALL* concertedly acted in such an oligopolistic manner, then
there would be some truth to what you allude to. But the truth of the matter is that
most all corporations - just like most all individuals - act in their own best self-interest.

This creates a marketplace of jobs where the individual can choose to work at the
job that best suits his circumstances: education, skills, locale and other such considerations.

If, after all, over 90% of the non-governmental workforce is *not* unionized, why
would not all these individuals acting in their own best interests *not* be clamoring to
create or join a union?

Unions, with their exclusionary practices, impose an unwarranted societal cost; for instance,
when the pandering Gray Davis recently signed the bill that guaranteed that crossing guards
and other such union members would receive pensions equivalent to 80% to 90% of their
salaries, just who do you think is ultimately going to have to foot the bill for that?

The labor union does the same thing for the employee.

From an economic standpoint, unions drive up the cost of goods and services beyond what
their equilibrium price would be in the marketplace based on supply and demand.

BTW, I am slightly right of center!!

Well, at least you have sense enough not to be to the left of it. :-)

GeoSynch calls me a Bolshevik, and Sanders calls me a Reactionary!!!

You may take solace no one's called you Trotsky yet!


GeoSynch