I will not argue the changes for the better that a union can achieve. Coal mining is an excellent example. As is the meat packing industry. Anybody who has read The Jungle cannot be completely critical of how a union of workers can make changes.

But, the quick point, is that it freezes out those who are not part of the Union, or cannot get in the Union's good graces.

And the more extended point is most changes start out for the better. It's the unintended consequences that I find evil. For a union to organize to protect the worker's rights, I do not find incredibly distasteful. What I find distasteful is what the Union does after it gets it's complaints resolved. After you get job security, and what you think of as 'adequate' wages, the Unions continue to push, and push, and push. Why? Because if they didn't the Union leaders wouldn't have a job, and would not be able to justify the 'dues' that they steal from the workers.

A union creates a monopoly, by definition. When you unionize all of the available workers and place them in a collective pool, the union becomes the sole source of labor, and by default, the jobs in a certain field.

Once they achieve that, they can go on strike to coerce employers into giving up more of their profit. Now we get to the problem. How much is enough? After a point, it becomes unsustainable and the employer is forced to increase prices, which leads to inflation and a larger class difference between the employer and the employee who now has to pay more for goods.

The ACLU is a close parallel. I commend the work they did in their early years and it was absolutely necessary. Now, they just look for fights to pick to get publicity so they can get more money. It is no longer about civil liberties, but it's about propaganda and sensationalism.

That is where I have seen all Unions end up. No longer doing what they were designed to do, but just trying to get more and more.

Also, because of the set pay-scale of most unions based on seniority, it removes the initiative and drive to get ahead from most of its employees. In effect, it makes lazy people work no harder than they have to, and makes people who would normally work hard, work less so that the lazy people don't look bad.

Kind of a 'negative peer pressure'.

No, not all Unions HAVE to end up that way, but given enough time, they all do. When you take away the benefits/consequences of hard work, or laziness, and make everybody in effect 'equal', it NEVER brings everybody up to the level of the best worker. It inevitably brings everybody down to the level of the least effective worker.

The novel that has influenced me most in life, was Atlas Shrugged. Many of the ideals that I had always had are written in that book. It wasn't until I read it that I realized I wasn't alone.

Our media, our church's, and our schools preach equality until it made me feel abnormal because I did not believe everybody was equal. I always believed everybody had equal potential, but some people work very hard to reach a level above their peers.

I will not be throttled by the weakest link in an organization. I do not believe I would fit in well with a Union because I do not believe everybody should have a job with equal pay and equal benefits. We need people to dig ditches, and thankfully, there are many people who aspire to do nothing better.

Regards,
Kerb