data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f12a/9f12ab3ddf9f2a956edd4cd64883a274ecc5ada4" alt=""
From: IN%"stewarts@ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 3-SEP-1996 06:43:40.27 I would note that most unions are mostly run by populists of various varieties, who are generally against individual liberties - whether liberal or conservative populist doesn't make any real difference in the long run. To me, Pat Buchannan and Adolf Hitler look rather similar.
While some unions are clearly run by and for thugs, some employers have also hired thugs to attack union organizers, and both unions and employers have convinced government thugs to attack their opponents, though unions generally have convinced governments to write laws with fines attached, while employers have often had actual Federal troops shooting union strikers, and have had police refrain from defending strikers from attack.
I object to union members getting beaten up for union membership, striking, etcetera, just as much as I object to members of any other non-governmental organization being beaten activity. But there's a difference between the right not to get beaten up and someone claiming that union membership - still less not working - isn't a perfectly legitimate reason for firing someone. The state should not be interfering in this matter, in either direction.
In a free market, there wouldn't be laws requiring or forbidding union membership, and some unions would prosper by providing good service to their members and to the employers that hire them, while others wouldn't.
Quite.... but unions that survive under a free market will look a _lot_ different from today's unions. -Allen