But I am. And my point is that claiming that one anecdote proves anything is false. It is just as false as claiming that most teachers are dicks because one teacher was a dick once.
Do you? Multiple posters who are (or were) union members have come in and talked about the shit policies, corrupt union leaders, and intimidation tactics they’ve personally witnessed.
You poo poo all of that. But you can’t do that. We’re allowed to have an opinion as well. Isn’t that what being in a union is all about after all?
It’s people like you that make me hate the union I’m forced to support.
My comments have been very specific. Do not read anything into them.
Of course you can have your opinion. You simply can’t make claims that aren’t supported by the facts. That’s all.
Saying something you can’t possibly know, or have no evidence for, is something I won’t accept. You shouldn’t either.
No it’s not. You are simply confused by what I’m saying, and don’t seem to care enough to read the thread. You hate unions for other reasons. We can discuss those if you like, even though they’ve probably already been discussed here.
I have read the thread (you even thanked me for my contribution). This dispute is over the loss of union support over time.
You implied in your post that you saw no issue with the school bus incident. If you would like to restate your position about that particular incident, I would love to hear it.
You can ask for anything that you like. Since I have no contract with you, I am under zero obligation to provide. The apology currently owed is you towards the pro-union side. Your contributions to this thread are causing more harm than good.
I said that I personally witnessed union officials acting corrupt. You say that I can’t make claims that aren’t supported by the facts. Which makes no sense when said about a personal anecdote.
I know the facts because I witnessed them. You can either accept that (and admit that unions are full of corrupt jackasses some of the time) or you can call me a liar. So far, you have chosen the liar route.
**Justin Bailey - **“unions are full of corrupt jackasses some of the time”
If we change this to:
“Corporations are full of corrupt jackasses some of the time”
Does it follow that all corporations are evil and should be destroyed? Because that’s the argument being made against unions. Saying that all of something should be eliminated because some of them have corruption involved is a pretty extreme and irrational viewpoint in any context. And I don’t think that anyone can argue that no corporations are full of corrupt assholes, right?
You’re right, in that way, it doesn’t follow. But I was only using “some of the time” because I think that’s the only way Brother Lance will accept it (side note, why must all union reps begin their emails with “Dear Brothers and Sisters”?).
Personally, I think most unions are corrupt and mine is just another example of a common problem.
Probably to indicate that everyone in the union is on the same level with each other, and that we’re all in it together. That’s just what I’d assume anyway.
That’s fair, but I think the opposing viewpoint is that we shouldn’t just demonize and break all unions and get rid of all labor organization because some people have had some bad experiences with their particular unions. Some people have had bad experiences with management as well, but noone is advocating getting rid of management across the board are they?
Certainly I’m not aware of anyone seriously advocating outlawing unions. Everyone should have the absolute right to band together and bargain collectively if they wish.
I simply propose removing legal restrictions on employers – like the inability to fire striking workers – that give unions an unfair edge. The essential element here is freedom – for the union, the employee, the employer. Each is – or should be – free to bargain or to break ties and walk away, and to bargain without the use of threats, intimidation, or violence.