XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.conservative   
   From: xxxrayted@aol.com   
      
   In article <4d8291b7$0$4362$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>,   
    Tim Howard  wrote:   
      
   > > What I'm saying is that if there were never any unions in this country,   
   > > the government would have eventually created laws and rights of workers.   
   > > Do you really think that if there no unions, we would be working 70   
   > > hours per week in dangerous work environments today???\   
   >   
   > We would be a lot closer to that than what we have today yes.  You are   
   > very naive.  You really trust big business and the government they   
   > control to do anything voluntarily for anyone below themselves?   
      
   What I trust is the greed of politicians to do anything to keep a job.   
      
   > > Sure, unions had their place at one time.   
   >   
   > The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and the same can be said for   
   > any other form of justice, including worker's rights.   
      
   So we must be slaves to these unions as long as this country free?   
      
   > But that time is up because they became too large and powerful.   
   >   
   > You are blind to the present situation.  There is only about 10%   
   > unionization, and that is non-agricultural.  Look at how much control   
   > big business, especially non-unionized big business has over our   
   > politics.  You are buying into a Republican-created myth.   
      
      
   No myth at all.  And let me ask: how many hundreds of billions have been   
   pulled out of our wallets because of the Democrat support groups?  How   
   is it we allow trial lawyers, unions and environmentalists to control   
   our lives?   
      
   > Looking at the entire picture, we would have been better off without them.   
   >   
   > You must be an owner, in management, or otherwise well-off to say that.   
      
   Nope. Just a truck driver with rental property.   
      
   >    Our cost of living would be much lower today   
   >   
   > "Our" wages would be even lower.   
      
   No, proportionately lower.  What you could buy with ten dollars today   
   could be bought with five dollars without the union movement.   
      
   >   which means we would have many more manufacturing jobs in the US.   
   >   
   > The reason we don't have manufacturing jobs is because of free trade.   
   > Owners are allowed to ship all jobs oversees.  Don't blame unions for   
   > that because it started in the 70s, when unions were already declining.   
   >   Coincidence?  Anyway, the only way workers could have saved their jobs   
   > from going oversees is if they were being paid less than $1/hour.  Is   
   > that the United States you want to live in?   
      
   Your figures are skewed.  First off, business owners were never   
   prohibited from taking their jobs overseas.  That's not what our federal   
   government does.  Secondly, there are great costs for transportation and   
   warehousing with all these imported products.  It's just that even with   
   those costs, it's cheaper to pay those costs and haul overseas products   
   here.  If not for unions, we would still make a livable wage and be able   
   to sell our products in our stores.  What the unions have done is price   
   our country out of the world market.   
      
      
   > We can't keep these unaffordable unions around because of   
   > > what they did 50 years ago.   
   > >   
   > They started doing it 80 years ago.  And the fight continues.   
      
   What fight?  As you stated, unions have been on a continual decline and   
   will remain so.   
      
   --   
   Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)