Difference between a unionist and communist?

Good morning union baws. Have a wonderful day holding your company and industry hostage at gun point!

Some rob with a gun while most rob with an ink pen.

quote:

---

Charging a fortune for life saving medicine.

---

Got too. We're paying more so other countries can pay less, and because many of our own citizens dont pay anything at all.

quote:

---

Difference between a unionist and communist?

---

A communist believes that:

- The state owns and controls all property, means of production, and delivery of services
- Everyone is assigned a job in line with their natural talent, for example, being a doctor, engineer or a janitor.
- Everyone is provided for equally by the state regardless of their job or relative contribution to society.

A unionist believes labor deserves a larger share of corporate profits, safer working conditions, and better benefits than they currently have.

Note: I have never belonged to a union, but I have worked in an environment where labor and clerical were unionized.

I'm 50/50 on em.

Sure you have the right to unionize if you feel your value is not being rewarded properly.

But you don't have the right to tank someone's business. There have been instances where the company has said, well, based on what you're demanding, we're just going to sell and get out. We'll take our millions while you self-entitled can be unemployed with zero.

So, I would say proceed with caution. If you believe you're undervalued, you better be right.

This. Today they should really be for very specialized labor in companies where it's easy for the company to stiff the worker. There are not many situations like this anymore. I only know of one such instance and even then their workers are unionized and are very well taken care of for what they do.

quote:

---

Sure you have the right to unionize if you feel your value is not being rewarded properly.

But you don't have the right to tank someone's business. There have been instances where the company has said, well, based on what you're demanding, we're just going to sell and get out. We'll take our millions while you self-entitled can be unemployed with zero.

So, I would say proceed with caution. If you believe you're undervalued, you better be right.

---

I worked for Lucent Technologies, the remnants of which are now owned by Nokia. Most of the US-based employees were let go (including me after 38 years), in part because management agreed to some really bad contracts with our unions.

Example: the management of our Oklahoma City factory agreed to fully paid FMLA for 6 months. So, guess what all the union members did? They took off for 6 months of paid vacation. I found it hard to blame the union members for that. They asked for it, and management agreed to it.

But, it ultimately led to the factory being shut down and the production moved to Mexico.

quote:

---

A unionist believes labor deserves a larger share of corporate profits, safer working conditions, and better benefits than they currently have.

---

A unionist can believe all of those things, collectively negotiate, etc., but when they ask the government to intercede, aka use force, on their behalf, they've crossed the line to socialism/communism. When the govt can tell the owner of a business they have to pay higher salaries, benefits, etc., the govt controls the business. When the govt decides who the business owner can hire and fire, the govt controls the business. When the government can tell a property owner how much they can charge for rent, the government controls the property.

After that, we're just quibbliing over details about which pieces and parts of private possession the govt needs to redistribute.