The American Union, a conservative's paradox?

The American Union, a conservative's paradox?

by Liv | Published on August 3rd, 2009, 8:35 pm | Life

Jimmy_Hoffa.jpg (8.87 KiB) Viewed 399 times

So I'm at dinner tonight, stuffing my face with some of the worse food you can ever manage. One of my favorite things to do is observe people. At this particular establishment as well as many local restaurants I observed what I thought might be illegal immigrants. The were hard at work, working hard for a good day's pay. Isn't that what everyone wants? Just to be paid honestly for hard work?

It was right about that I heard one of my conservative commentators voices in my head saying "but they're taking our American Jobs"... "send them back to Mexico"... "they should come here legally".... then on the other side of my shoulder an angel pops up and asks "Yes, let's unionize this establishment and get Americans in here for $28.00 an hour"... this is when the voices in my head started to get into a fight, crossed over my hunched back all the while I plowed my snout into the bourbon chicken.

No, not really.

So it's taken me three paragraphs to get to the point. The point is this. Conservatives are generally the ones who are against immigration, but yet also against unions.

...and your point, Liv?

My point is, isn't America nothing but a giant union? I mean we have a minimum pay, requirements to get in, and want only people "in" the union to work "in" the union. Anti-Immigration = Union. I mean, we're like the teamsters, and the EU is like the Mafia... who is Jimmy Hoffa?

But seriously, how can two ideas which are basically the same thing cause conservatives to take alternative opinions on. The only possible answer I can think of is greed.

Which brings me full circle now. What happened to a "good day pay for a hard day's labor"? Isn't it that philosophy that made this, and almost any country "great"? Before there were borders?

I suppose I've got to disclaim that if conservatives are in conflict with their own belief structures by being against immigrants, and unions, then I might also be in conflict being somewhat pro-immigrant and pro-union.
The test of all this however is what is protecting who from what? Are we protecting people from people or people from corporations? From capitalism? I'm not sure anymore.

[BecauseHeLives]

If you owned a restaurant who paid your employees a decent wage, had decent food at a decent price but your business suffered because a guy down the street opened a similar type of restaurant but was able to undercut your prices because he paid his employees under the table (illegal immigrants) then you'd be upset. And likely out of business real soon because you can't fight the competition buck for buck. What was done to you was illegal but it happens all the time and good tax-paying businesses go under because of it. And you have a bankruptcy on your record for 10 years.

There is a reason they call them ILLEGAL immigrants.

[Liv]

So refresh my memory. Are you for unions? And if not, how do you explain the similarities between the concepts?

[BecauseHeLives]

So refresh my memory. Are you for unions? And if not, how do you explain the similarities between the concepts?

Some unions have a place. Most do not. In most instances, when you discuss unions then using the term greed is appropriate. Most unions are more greedy than most any corporate entity you could name.

[antifascist]

So refresh my memory. Are you for unions? And if not, how do you explain the similarities between the concepts?

Some unions have a place. Most do not. In most instances, when you discuss unions then using the term greed is appropriate. Most unions are more greedy than most any corporate entity you could name.

what, pray tell, do you base that last sentence on? Gut feeling perhaps? unions exist to represent members, corporations exist to make profits. Use your "god-given" rationality and try to figure out which one will lead most naturally to greed. Let name a few corporate entities for you: Enron, AIG, Goldman Sacs, Exxon. I guess that it should be up to you to tell us when unions are appropriate. Go ahead, join the "smartest men in the room."

[BecauseHeLives]

So refresh my memory. Are you for unions? And if not, how do you explain the similarities between the concepts?

Some unions have a place. Most do not. In most instances, when you discuss unions then using the term greed is appropriate. Most unions are more greedy than most any corporate entity you could name.

what, pray tell, do you base that last sentence on? Gut feeling perhaps? unions exist to represent members, corporations exist to make profits. Use your "god-given" rationality and try to figure out which one will lead most naturally to greed. Let name a few corporate entities for you: Enron, AIG, Goldman Sacs, Exxon. I guess that it should be up to you to tell us when unions are appropriate. Go ahead, join the "smartest men in the room."

Unions use to exist to serve the workers. That isn't necessarily the case today. The incentive for a union to try and organize companies is all monetary. They could care less about the workers. They want those extra union dues so those fat cat union bosses can live well. At least that's the way I see it is in many cases. I have lots of family that used to work in unions and union demands are what put them out of work. The uncertainty of strikes (which were often) always put a fog of uncertainty and stress on my parents. Maybe unions aren't as greedy as some of the companies you mentioned but they ride the same bus in the morning.