RWs are always bashing labor unions – lazy, greedy, entitled slobs, crippling industry, driving up the price of the product, cutting into the margin of profit.
RWs are always bashing illegal (or even legal) immigrants – desperately poor shlubs, taking jobs away from Americans, driving down average wages.
Has it never occurred to you that anti-immigration is a form of labor unionism? The “union” is the American demos or citizen-body. You’re trying to keep all the American jobs for Americans, and immigrants are scab labor. How free-market-capitalist is that?!
When I put the dinner on the table in my house, I don’t want the neighbors kids coming in, univited and tucking in. But I do want my own kids to come and eat. Does that make me guilty of child abuse somehow.
If you don’t want to go that far, how about hiring workers on parole, and being able to send them back to jail if they complain. That should keep the unions out of your shop. I don’t think too many right wingers would be in support of that arrangement either.
Right wingers basically want to eliminate the “closed shop” (must be in a union to work here) and to narrow the definition of an unfair labor practice.
Free trade busts unions much better than immigrants. You can have workers in completelyinhuman conditions working overseas producing cheap goods that dirve domestic unionized manufacturers out of the marketplace.
And you are mixing up two types of right wingers. I know right wingers who are positively salivating over the prospect of hiring illegal immigrants. But they are not necessarily the same people who are complaining about illegal immigration. That person is much more likely to be the blue collar, social conservative, who stands to lose his job to the illegal immigrant. Both the employer and the employee go into the polling booth and pull the same lever, but one of them is doing it for the promise of lower regulation and lower taxes. The other is doing it for the promise border security and ban on gay marriage. Maybe even the right to yell “nigger!” and not be hauled up on some kind of hate crime charge.
Very few people believe in an unrestricted free market, partly because most people want to put their own country first. That’s because they have a belief that preserving American* jobs for Americans, and buying American goods rather than imports, might help their own economic situation – and that of their compatriots, with whom they identify.
And when I say “American” here, I’m not suggesting that only Americans have these beliefs. Substitute any nationality you like there.
(RW=??? Please don’t use unexplained acronyms in an OP.)
I’m not sure why some “conservatives” are against labor unions or immigrants.
A part of a free market system is the right for individuals to form groups for their own economic benefit. This means both corporations and unions are a necessary part of a free market system. The more they are restricted, the less free the market.
And a free market also requires free movement within the economy. That means both goods and services (and thus the labor) must be able to move. The more you restrict their movement, the less free the market.
Any conservative who is against unions or immigration and also claims to support the free market is being hypocritical.
Ron Paul doesn’t, IIRC, based on his rhetoric in last year’s Republican primaries. In fact, I’ve heard this is a point of division within the Libertarian Party.
Closed shop deals are just that; part of a deal. If the company doesn’t want to sign a closed shop agreement, **then they shouldn’t sign it. ** They DO sign them because, quite often, it’s a tradeoff between that and other concessions (and it’s often just easier to do business that way.)
Your definition of “labor union” is a bit too broad to be useful. Not all immigrants are workers, after all.
So I am not sure what your point is - I should drop my opposition to illegal immigration because citizens have rights that illegal aliens don’t? That is rather like arguing that unionists should support scab labor. Do you?
This is the first I’ve seen it. It’s better to err on the side of explicitness, especially if you want to attract comments from new people.
A union monopolizes a resource as much as any contract does. If a company can sign a contract to exclusively supply a product to another company, why can’t a union sign a contract to exclusively supply labor to a company?
Of course there should be no coercion (either way), and government should enforce that. And the government should also restrict the sizes of organizations to prevent monopolization of the market. For example, if the UAW supplied labor to all car manufacturers and no other organization could enter the marketplace of autoworkers, I’d argue for that union to be split into several smaller ones.
I’m actually fairly moderate on labor issues and immigration both. That said, though, the argument in the OP is nonsense. It makes the mistake of confusing the laws of citizenship and residency with labor law.
Besides, the AFL-CIO itself doesn’t support unrestricted immigration either, per this link. And it remains a fact that the AFL early in its history supported Chinese exclusion because they saw it as harmful to its member unions.
So perhaps either clarification or retraction of this premise is in order, since it is not gaining much support here from any side.
** Attention LWs: Pro-immigration is a form of pro-capitalism**
LWs are always bashing business owners – lazy, greedy, entitled slobs, crippling industry, driving up the price of the product, cutting into worker’s salaries.
LWs are always promoting legal (or even illegal) immigrants – desperately poor hard workers, having to take disgusting jobs that Americans don’t want and only getting a pittance of what they are worth in return.
Has it never occurred to you that pro-immigration is a form of pro-capitalism? The capitalists are the American rich. The wealthy business owners. You’re trying to keep wages low and profits high for the rich. How socialist is that?!
I guess my take on the OP is…so what? RW does not equal economic conservative or free market advocate. That some RWer’s feel that way…well, what of it? How does this matter?
Yeah…kind of stupid, ehe? Sort of like LWer’s and Democrats who favor trade protectionism or anti-Globalization policies in a futile and misguided attempt to protect US jobs.
Not very. I’m missing your point though. It’s fairly obvious that folks on the RW AND LW who favor such policies are not free market advocates…so, why would it matter? Were you thinking you were springing a gotcha on these folks?
Unless you’re a Native American, every last one of you (including me) are descendants of immigrants*. Immigrants make this country great. The more the merrier, if you ask me. I think we should let every single person who wants to be an American become an American, with a minimum of fuss and paperwork. I support free trade and that includes the free flow of labor. The only people we should keep out are those who should be in prison; i.e., convicted, fleeing felons. Everyone else is more than welcome as far as I’m concerned.
*Actually, I take that back. There was a time when both American continents were unpopulated, so the first “Native” Americans were immigrants, too.
The OP claims that anti-immigration stances are akin to pro-unionism. You seem to have demonstrated that unions take what are the equivalent of pro-union positions in that framework. I’m uncertain what point you’re trying to make in doing so.
Would you call those stances necessarily right-wing, if they are held by so broad a section of the population to include labor unions alike? The AFL-CIO does not in its platform advocate lifting all barriers to immigration. And since some right-wingers do (particularly those influenced by the libertarian tradition) frankly I do not know what the subject of debate is.