The moral pillars of our societal discourse these days rely on a form of inebriated altruism which, if strictly followed, requires sacrifice from everyone at every level and in every action.
The only way to get the attention of the crazy woke urbanites is for the doers to use their leverage. It drives the useless paper pushers crazy. I love it!!!! Yes, it hurts my family, but we’re doing just fine and we actually realize the things we need for life don’t just magically appear - humans are involved, humans who can say no, which shocks and terrifies the wokies and their WEF masters.
NCmom, I agree 100%! People need to feel some pain and be unable to get the merchandise that magically shows up on store shelves every day. After all we've been through, they still seem to think they can spit on everyone who farms, manufactures, delivers, etc etc...
I for one am pleased to see a union doing what they are paid (well) to do. I have watched 2/3 unions in my household take a knee to governments' (illegal) mandates. In my husband's case, the union is sitting on the group grievance ("for now") re: suspension w/o pay for those who work from home. His union's outright refusing to represent him on the religious accommodation rejection, so he must represent himself. He's allowed someone to sit beside him, but whomever he chooses can't speak. So, it is worker against HR labour specialists who hear grievances all of the time.
That this union is doing their job is refreshing. And I agree with others, those who looked down their snarky noses at the truckers' & farmers protesting, deserve to be shorted on their favourite luxury items.
The notion that a single worker can negotiate with a large employer on an equal footing is of course nothing but class warfare.
Big business wants serfs, slaves and robots, not "the wrong kind of people getting uppity ideas above their station".
Then again, no laissez faire, Friedmanian or Mises-cultist economist ever held a real job, working 12 hour shifts six days a week to feed a spouse and four kids, living in a block of flats owned by the company, said company being subsidised with taxes bled off from the worker "by his chosen representatives" several of which jump hop-scotch from politics to business between elections.
And no, unionisation and labourer's rights are not marxism. They came well before marxism. They were however co-opted by it and so the entire idea of worker's rights remains tainted.
Put it like this: if the CEO of the rail company would stop showing up to work for a month, would the trains stop? No they wouldn't, would they? Yet such a CEO tyoically "earn" in a year or three what a worker might at best earn in 45 years. Maybe, if his body doesn't give out first.
Organized labor isn’t Marxism. It’s free market economics. No one that understands and supports the concept of voluntary financial systems in a feee market opposes labor organizing itself. It’s a central theme.
What they oppose is forced union membership where the forced membership and single organizing body allowed is more in the pocket of the politicians as a result of lack of competition for their services than they are interested in representing the workers paying dues. There is a reason Democrats support forced unionization - it means they can own the unions. All that free choice stuff really eerks them.
No need to preach that to me - I'm from Sweden, where joining a union up until only 20 years ago also meant joining the socialist democrat party whether you wanted to or not.
Main reason for them giving themselves this law, was that here parties are state funded based on membership. Sweden was censured numerous times for this by the UN, forced party membership being a violation of the human rights, especially as you had to ask for permission to leave the party but stay in the union, and worse: the unions control unemployment insurance in a corporativist set up between union (admin and oversight), state (funding through taxes, though only for union members) and party (control, indoctrination and expulsion of people not kow-towing the party line).
With the exception of forced membership, this system is still our basic unemployment insurance system. The amount you get if non-unionised or in a non-party affiliated union is much lower.
This system was set up by the party, the unions and the major financial families of Sweden back in the 1930s. The party gets votes and moey, the unions gets power and the families controlling the economy gets business as usual and the workers under control.
And the party also delivered rules and regulations making it almost impossible for any competition to set up shop.
The only way to get the attention of the crazy woke urbanites is for the doers to use their leverage. It drives the useless paper pushers crazy. I love it!!!! Yes, it hurts my family, but we’re doing just fine and we actually realize the things we need for life don’t just magically appear - humans are involved, humans who can say no, which shocks and terrifies the wokies and their WEF masters.
100% agree
NCmom, I agree 100%! People need to feel some pain and be unable to get the merchandise that magically shows up on store shelves every day. After all we've been through, they still seem to think they can spit on everyone who farms, manufactures, delivers, etc etc...
I for one am pleased to see a union doing what they are paid (well) to do. I have watched 2/3 unions in my household take a knee to governments' (illegal) mandates. In my husband's case, the union is sitting on the group grievance ("for now") re: suspension w/o pay for those who work from home. His union's outright refusing to represent him on the religious accommodation rejection, so he must represent himself. He's allowed someone to sit beside him, but whomever he chooses can't speak. So, it is worker against HR labour specialists who hear grievances all of the time.
That this union is doing their job is refreshing. And I agree with others, those who looked down their snarky noses at the truckers' & farmers protesting, deserve to be shorted on their favourite luxury items.
The notion that a single worker can negotiate with a large employer on an equal footing is of course nothing but class warfare.
Big business wants serfs, slaves and robots, not "the wrong kind of people getting uppity ideas above their station".
Then again, no laissez faire, Friedmanian or Mises-cultist economist ever held a real job, working 12 hour shifts six days a week to feed a spouse and four kids, living in a block of flats owned by the company, said company being subsidised with taxes bled off from the worker "by his chosen representatives" several of which jump hop-scotch from politics to business between elections.
And no, unionisation and labourer's rights are not marxism. They came well before marxism. They were however co-opted by it and so the entire idea of worker's rights remains tainted.
Put it like this: if the CEO of the rail company would stop showing up to work for a month, would the trains stop? No they wouldn't, would they? Yet such a CEO tyoically "earn" in a year or three what a worker might at best earn in 45 years. Maybe, if his body doesn't give out first.
The same goes double for career politicians.
Organized labor isn’t Marxism. It’s free market economics. No one that understands and supports the concept of voluntary financial systems in a feee market opposes labor organizing itself. It’s a central theme.
What they oppose is forced union membership where the forced membership and single organizing body allowed is more in the pocket of the politicians as a result of lack of competition for their services than they are interested in representing the workers paying dues. There is a reason Democrats support forced unionization - it means they can own the unions. All that free choice stuff really eerks them.
No need to preach that to me - I'm from Sweden, where joining a union up until only 20 years ago also meant joining the socialist democrat party whether you wanted to or not.
Main reason for them giving themselves this law, was that here parties are state funded based on membership. Sweden was censured numerous times for this by the UN, forced party membership being a violation of the human rights, especially as you had to ask for permission to leave the party but stay in the union, and worse: the unions control unemployment insurance in a corporativist set up between union (admin and oversight), state (funding through taxes, though only for union members) and party (control, indoctrination and expulsion of people not kow-towing the party line).
With the exception of forced membership, this system is still our basic unemployment insurance system. The amount you get if non-unionised or in a non-party affiliated union is much lower.
This system was set up by the party, the unions and the major financial families of Sweden back in the 1930s. The party gets votes and moey, the unions gets power and the families controlling the economy gets business as usual and the workers under control.
And the party also delivered rules and regulations making it almost impossible for any competition to set up shop.
Not communism, but much worse: corporativism.