…of “progressives.”
The Founders’ understanding of the origin of government, in turn, proceeds from a recognition of the difficulty many individuals have in honoring the obligations that flow from the equality principle. Government is formed, in other words, for the express purpose of better enforcing this duty among men, thereby better securing the freedom of all. “If men were angels,” as Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51, “no government would be necessary.” Precisely because men are not angels, because many are strongly inclined to violate the rights of others when it is in their interest to do so, individuals consent to enter into the social compact, and establish government on the understanding it will use its powers to restrain those domestically and internationally who would violate their freedom. In principle, then, the power of government is not absolute but is limited to whatever actions are necessary to secure the natural rights of its members.
By rejecting the existence of natural rights, accordingly, the Progressives consciously repealed this limit: “It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state,” Merriam observed, “but on the other hand it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way. The question is now one of expediency rather than of principle. . . . Each specific question must be decided on its own merits, and each action of the state justified, if at all, by the relative advantages of the proposed line of conduct.” In devising the content of the law, legislators need not worry about respecting the individual’s natural right to rule himself, because “there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way.”
In principle, accordingly, all of the rights previously believed to inhere in the individual — e.g., the rights to life, to physical liberty, to decide whom to marry, to enjoy the fruits of his labor, to speak freely, etc. — were now subject to public disposal. Whether and to what extent government allows individuals to control any aspect of their personal concerns was now purely a matter of how it viewed the consequences of doing so. To illustrate just how far the Progressives were willing to take this, Merriam, in drawing the foreign-policy implications of this change, declared: “Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away; and such action ‘violates no rights of these populations which are not petty and trifling in comparison with its [the Teutonic race’s] transcendent right and duty to establish legal order everywhere.’” As Progressive economist and New Republic editor Walter Weyl summed up this shift in 1912, America was now “emphasizing the overlordship of the public over property and rights formerly held to be private.”
Read all.
Well, that kinda lays it out. Who’d thunk it could happen like that from so long ago? Has America been asleep for 100years?
“Progressives” used to be much more open and honest about their intenstions.
Rand,
I read the whole thing. There is much to be said for Ms. Miller’s history.
I do, however, disagree to some extent. Early industrial capitalism did have its problems caused by abusive management. In 18th Century England 8 year old girls were herded into factories and made to work from 6 AM until 7 PM — unless demand was higher which caused hours to be lengthened to 5 AM to 9 PM. There’s much more of this kind of thing. Charles Dickens did not make things up out of whole cloth. Neither did the founders of the labor movement and other reform groups.
When people are beaten down by management, forced into poverty, etc., don’t be surprised if they make alliances with people libertarians don’t like.
One of the things I consider important in the United States today is management reform in some areas of our life. Some companies are still well led, selling honest, good products and services while treating their workforce as valued members of the team with real human needs. Others do not.
Jack Welch was CEO of GE for many years. Some people call him “legendary.” Others note he boosted the bottom line by doing things harmful to the workforce and eventually harmful to the company.
Carly Fiorina out in California is running for the Senate, citing her business experience. The HP board fired her when they figured out the harm she was doing to the company. Fiorina should be kept as far away from any kind of power as is possible.
Telling someone they are a free man when they are begging for work from bullies who demand 70, 80, 90, hours per week doesn’t ring true.
Modern management approaches have been implicated in all sorts of contemporary problems from NASA (think Columbia) to AIG (think the financial meltdown) to more.
Interestingly enough, I think some of the current management approaches might have been imported from Germany as well.
Yes, I would like to see libertarians take on these problems.
“Fiorina should be kept as far away from any kind of power as is possible.”
When the choice is bad or worse, bad wins. Screw the arrogant Senator Boxer. Fuck you Ma’am!
Good article.
Chuck, you might be surprised to discover that libertarians have no beef with labor unions per se (only their extraordinary list of legal privileges that would make the most corrupt CEO blush) – it’s certainly within the scope of natural rights to bargain collectively with my employer if that’s what I want.
At 1 to 3% of the vote, don’t hold your breath.
Titus,
Yes, it is possible for labor unions to have too much power as well. That doesn’t seem to be that much a problem today since so few people are actually union members.
On the other hand, managers today all too often are trained in business schools which do not do all that good a job of teaching people everything you really need to lead a healthy business. It is too easy to find management failure in the U.S. today.
No, I don’t expect libertarians to actually solve problems by themselves. I do think they ought to address such problems that I briefly mentioned — and not just talk about the evils of government.
M. Puckett,
Could not the California Republican Party actually find someone who was good?
I don’t know much about Boxer. What I do know about Fiorina is quite negative.
Also, for balance, Chuck Divine needs to read the book CAPITALISM AND THE HISTORIANS, edited by Hayek. The chapters by Ashton are, as I recall, particularly illuminating. As bad as conditions were by our standards, they were replacing pre-industrial conditions that were, for most people, even worse, CD’s idea that people were “beaten down”
into poverty (like they were prosperous before the evil capitalists came around, or that children “were herded” (by whom? the State? Ebeneeze Scrooge and his gang of blunderbuss-wielding stooges?) into factories need a second look.
“No, I don’t expect libertarians to actually solve problems by themselves. I do think they ought to address such problems that I briefly mentioned –and not just talk about the evils of government.”
Actually, libertarians talk about the evils of initiated force–and by force I mean real gun-to-the-head force. That invariable leads to complaints about government because the State (and I like the Nockian distinction between “government” and “the State”) is, as far as I know, the only entity or body that can legally initiate force. If I couldn’t afford health care and mugged you so I could get money for my doctor bills, I’d go to jail–and rightfully so. But if I persuade my congressman to force you to pay for my medical bills, I’ve accomplished the same thing legally, and you’ll go to jail if you resist.
I’ve had a lot of bonehead mangers in my day. What should be done about them? In the words of Leonard Read, “Anything that’s peaceful.”
And I agree with M Puckett: The stupidest, nastiest bosses I’ve ever suffered under would be preferable to Boxer, just as they would be preferable to Pelosi, Reid and “Il Dufe.”
That doesn’t seem to be that much a problem today since so few people are actually union members.
Unions aren’t a problem today? I guess if you don’t mind having your state be bankrupted by their demands, it’s no problem.
Of course unions can cause problems, Rand. So do capitalistic bullies like Jack Welch. Which is worse? Right now I’d say Welch and company.
With all due respect, that’s nutty. Jack Welch hasn’t bankrupted California, New York and New Jersey. Jack Welch has never done anything to me.
Bilwick1, yeah.. I’m reading Orson Scott Card’s “Empire” (http://amzn.to/90egLH) at the moment. He keeps equating Progressives with the Left and the army with the Right.. it’s funny to see his politics shine through in just about every book he writes.
Yeah, unions are cool unless you’re selling patriotic trinkets outside a town hall meeting or a teap-party rally, then they show up in purple shirts and kick the shnikes outta you.
I guess there’s so few of ’em left, though, that Congress can just forget about those expemptions for them in the Cadillac-plan healthcare tax… Oops.
Unions aren’t unions without strikes. They’re a one-trick opny, and that trick is coercion. Without right-to-work laws, the have the hard power of Die Stadt to back ’em up, too — on both ends, worker and owner alike. Nothing “free” about that.
Thank you, progressives and unions, for ruining my hometown of Detroit, MI, and other cities like it. 🙁
Labor unions are necessary. Otherwise it may not be possible for workers to negotiate in a position of similar force to the corporation. Or the state for that matter. People no longer join unions in any measurable fashion, as they used to in the past, because working conditions are much improved.
I have already said what I think of Fiorina here a long, long time ago. She managed to buy the ticket to the election using money from the platinum plated parachute she got once fired from HP. If you look at her management record it is one disaster after another. Hopefully this medieval history graduate will have the traditional ass kicking other mismanagers got when they tried to buy their way into politics.
Unfortunately the US has mostly forgotten how a great manager should be. Even David Packard helped the US in more than one occasion. In my opinion he is one of the reasons behind the US winning the Cold War by rationalizing the ludicrous defense expenditure during the Reagan administrations.
Knowing Fiorina she would probably attempt to annex Illinois and outsource teaching to Rwanda.
“Right now I’d say Welch and company.”
Boy, the NEA is gonna LOVE you!
FIFY. Compensation has become so individualized because work in the US has become so individualized. Today it’s, “What can you, Mr. Godzilla, bring to the table?”
Rand,
Jack Welch has done enormous harm to the country. Young people today are avoiding tech fields in large numbers. Some months ago a friend who graduated from college in 1990 told me people in his generation started avoiding engineering as a career choice is because even back then yong people saw Jack Welch especially and others like him firing thousands of engineers and deciding to not choose engineering as a career.
This has been an interesting experiment. I do not believe I challenged any assertions made by libertarians about excessive government. I think limits on government are a good thing. The question I initially raised was “What do libertarians recommend doing about abusive, dishonest corporate management?” The argument began when, instead of suggesting libertarian approaches to the likes of Welch and Fiorina, I was scolded and informed about libertarianism.
In case people wonder about me, I’m finally reading a history classic — Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is excellent. I highly recommend it. Yes, I do read a good bit. Always have — starting when I was three years old.
Bye for a stretch. This weekend will be busy. Two art gallery openings and more stuff.
Chuck, that book I mentioned references Gibbon. Orson Scott Card is like that, providing references in fiction, like anyone cares.
if one does not have a free and open labor market, one gets labor unions. Use a monopoly to fight a monopoly. This is also one of the reasons why government employees have five times the rate of unionization (one can not just go work for the other government down the street).
The prevalence of unions is indicative of a government not maintaining an open labor market. Unions are not useful if people have freedom of employment.
Unions themselves are obviously not advantaged by a free and open labor market, and generally strive to encourage big business monopolies against who they can battle and justify their existence. When governments concede to unions they then have to turn around and concede to big business, to maintain balance, by increasing protectionism and so forth (granting monopolies). Eventually the unions and big business grow and effectively become integrated into the government (nationalized), and the government being much bigger is happy – but everyone else is worse off.
Big business monopolies and unions beget one another, neither are compatible with an open competitive market place.
Pete, whenever one has employer provided training you get unions. This is because employers have no interest in providing training which is transferable to other employers. They, rightfully, see training as an investment in *their* company, not someone else’s. As such, the only training an employee will provide is non-transferable skills and that leads to employees who feel invested in their job. Leaving to go get another job is difficult. Replacing employees is difficult. It’s a perfect storm for unionization of the workforce.
Jack Welch has done enormous harm to the country. Young people today are avoiding tech fields in large numbers.
I don’t see evidence that we have a supply problem with engineers. So this isn’t a useful observation.
And once again, Welsh didn’t do anything to effectively bankrupt three large states (with collectively just under a quarter of the US’s population). That honor partly goes to public unions.
Pete, whenever one has employer provided training you get unions.
That sounds like a non sequitur to me. After all, unions do a lot of bigger things, both positive and negative than just training that is a bit less job specific. For example, I doubt employees would see employer provided training (unless it was something of significant value, say leading to a college degree over the course of a few years) as worth 1% of their paycheck indefinitely.
The prevalence of unions is indicative of a government not maintaining an open labor market. Unions are not useful if people have freedom of employment.
I agree with Pete here.
Karl, I think you completely missed the point.
Unions don’t provide training, employers do, and they only do it when they are sure the employees wont take their training and go work somewhere else. As a result the labor force feels they can’t leave the job, and they know the employer can’t afford to fire them.
The result is the breakdown of the labor free market, and so you get unions.
This is why professionals don’t unionize.. they have transferable skills so competition beats collusion.
“Of course unions can cause problems, Rand. So do capitalistic bullies like Jack Welch. Which is worse? Right now I’d say Welch and company.”
Given a choice between bullies, I’d prefer the one who’s less apt to break my legs.
In the history of American labor relations, union members and workers have been shot and beaten repeatedly on the orders of business owners. Everybody from Henry Ford to Francis Peabody (coal mine owner) engaged in these violent attacks. Arguing that corporate bullies are less apt to break your legs is historically ignorant.
The American labor market pre-1930s was one of the least regulated and most free markets in the world. Anybody could work anywhere for any company. That meant that, if you as an individual attempted to bargain with an employer, they could (and did) fire you and hire somebody else.
It was also quite common in unskilled jobs to just fire almost everybody at once, and replace them with cheaper labor, frequently from another, more recently-arrived, immigrant group. These factors led to the rise of the unions and explained why unions tended to be anti-immigration.
It’s entirely reasonable to argue that modern unions are too powerful or otherwise problematic. However, the historical record is clear – they came about as a direct result of gross corporate abuse of the labor force.
“Unions don’t provide training, employers do, and they only do it when they are sure the employees wont take their training and go work somewhere else.”
Where do you get these nuggets? Do you not know what a right to work state is? People take training and leave jobs all the time.
“In the history of American labor relations, union members and workers have been shot and beaten repeatedly on the orders of business owners. Everybody from Henry Ford to Francis Peabody (coal mine owner) engaged in these violent attacks. Arguing that corporate bullies are less apt to break your legs is historically ignorant.”
Sorry I didn’t make myself more clear for the benfit of the dense. I was referring to the modern era. I suppose it’s possible even today Jack Welch is just as likely as Moose and Rocco from the union to be waiting for an employee in the parking lot with a tire iron. But I kind of doubt it.
Also, before CG diverts the discussion i(as is his wont) nto a debate about labor history* I’d like to return to the original discussion. I’ve done some study on the history of the inaptly named “Progressive” movement, and anyone who thinks it was launched as a reaction to the “excesses” (chiefly, an “excess” of liberty) of the Gilded Age is either naive, misinformed, or simply a party-line regurgitator. (You know who are you are.) It was launched by intellectuals who had an deep antipathy to individualims and indiviudal liberty, and who were in love with the power of the State as a means of forcing their view of the Ideal Society on everybody else. Whatever grievances they were addressing were simply exuses to expand the power of the State, Things really haven’t changed all that much.
I’m not diverting anything – merely correcting the record.
Regarding the idea that the Progressives were somehow in love with the State – not so much. They, like just about any other political theorist then and now, wanted to make America “a more perfect Union.”
The argument, then and now, is “how?” Since the evils of the Gilded Age were almost entirely the result of private actors run amuck, using government to fix the problem seemed entirely reasonable at the time. And in fact, their government interventions proved to be generally good ideas.
Too much salt is bad for one’s health. So is too little. It’s a similar concept with government.
I’ve written a couple of long replies to Waddington, but ended up deleting them. Bottom line, I’ll give him that what he says is plausible, but it by far isn’t an absolute truth. Certainly, my own personal and family history is working for employers that provided training, training useful in other endeavors, and never been a member of an union.
On the contrary, the few family members that belonged to unions, actually joined them like a guild to learn the trade. The trade was taught by the union, not the company. It gave the union then bargaining power over the company by offering a large trained labor pool that was contracted out. The contract rates tended to be far higher than if the company had hired and trained employees directly. But, trainers and training facilities were monopolized by the guild.
Anyway, I live in a right-to-work state that also happens to have a balanced budget and is not at risk of going bankrupt. Obviously, I don’t live in the progressive nirvana of Illinois.
Trent Waddington Says:
July 8th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Pete, whenever one has employer provided training you get unions. This is because employers have no interest in providing training which is transferable to other employers.
Bullshit. I work for a non-union defense contractor. I’m the chief trainer for what we do. We provide a lot of training to our employees because you can’t hire people who know how to do what we do. Sure, sometimes people will take that specialized knowledge and go to work for other companies. That’s just part of business.
Chris Gerrib Says:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:45 am
In the history of American labor relations, union members and workers have been shot and beaten repeatedly on the orders of business owners. Everybody from Henry Ford to Francis Peabody (coal mine owner) engaged in these violent attacks. Arguing that corporate bullies are less apt to break your legs is historically ignorant.
Care to provide some examples from the last 50 years, Chris? There are recent examples of union thugs attacking other people (e.g. SEIU attacking a man at a Tea Party rally last year or strike breakers being attacked).
Violence against union employees is mostly ancient history. Violence by union members is on-going. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant.
Violence against union employees is mostly ancient history. Weren’t we discussing historical events, like how the Progressive Movement got started?
“Violence against union employees is mostly ancient history. “Weren’t we discussing historical events, like how the Progressive Movement got started?
Well, we were. But then someone brought up contemporary CEOs like Jack Welch, and indicated he thought them more dangerous than unions–preferring, apparently, the tiron iron in the parking lot to the pink slip in the paycheck envelope.
“Regarding the idea that the Progressives were somehow in love with the State – not so much. They, like just about any other political theorist then and now, wanted to make America “a more perfect Union.”
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Read some more on Croly, et al, and get back to us.
Bullshit.
Wow, Larry, I had a double take. Your response looks a lot like one I deleted. “Bullshit.” was exactly my initial response to reading Waddington’s comments.
And yeah, I too work for a DoD company, and you’re right, they don’t teach what our technicians need to do in trade schools. We have to teach them, and yeah, we have to pay them pretty well to keep them. But it is better than having them untrained.
Going back to my youth, my first employers had to train me, and that training was useful with other employers in the industry. My incentives for staying with the employer started with basic gratitude.
Also, regarding the union organizers in the Gilded Age who were “attacked” by industrialists: were these innocent individuals who simply said, “I want a union” and then, instead of being just fired (which would have been within the property owner’s rights) set upon and beaten up (which wouldn’t have been)? Or were these employees who were already told they couldn’t have a union and were attempting to force their will upon the property owner?
I’d need more details on these “attacks” before I could judge whether they were justified. “Because there ain’t no history like Chris Gerrib ‘history’ because Chris Gerib ‘history’ is [mostly] bunk.”
Indeed, he doesn’t. Croly in particular was explicit in his love for the central state, big government and the Hamiltonian worldview. Also, let’s not forget Croly’s influence on Teddy Bear and the transformation of the GOP from the party of limited government to one inherently unable to defend the body politic against the onslaught of the socialists due to their own surrender of principles.
Bilwick – who were already told they couldn’t have a union and were attempting to force their will upon the property owner? Lincoln freed the slaves.
More on point, consider just one example: The Pullman Strike of 194. Key quotes from the article:
The strike began after Pullman fired worker representatives that had aired grievances. Pullman closed down operations and laid off the rest of the workforce. The American Railway Union, representing the workers, called for a strike that included a national boycott of all Pullman cars on national rail lines.
Railroad owners comprising the General Managers’ Association hired hundreds of men that were given police powers to suppress the strike.
Read “police powers” as “beat the ever-living shit out of ” strikers.
Geez, Gerrib, why truncate the article there, and insert your own tripe?
Illinois Governor John Altgeld, attempting to forestall federal intervention, called out the state militia as riots in Chicago turned to violence. Across the nation, strikers were stopping rail traffic, holding up vital shipments of raw materials and threatening to further worsen the economic downturn.
Here’s a link with a bit more detail, including these paragraphs (with reference to reports written at the time):
The strike went peacefully, but after several weeks the Pullman management had not changed its position and the strikers were desperate for aid. During the strike, the American Railway Union had convened in Chicago because it was the rail center of the United States. The recently formed American Railway Union had 465 local unions and claimed the memberships of 150,000 workers. Since the Pullman workers were an affiliated union on strike in Chicago, the ARU offered to send arbitrators for the Pullman cause. The Pullman workers refused this aid. Even so the ARU under the leadership of Eugene Debs decided to stop handling Pullman cars on June 26, if the Pullman Union would not agree to arbitration. The stage was set for the largest strike in the nation’s history.
On June 26, the ARU switchmen started to refuse to switch trains with Pullman cars. In response, the General Managers Association began to fire the switchmen for not handling the cars. The strike and boycott rapidly expanded, paralyzing the Chicago rail yards and most of the twenty-four rail lines in the city.
On July 2 a federal injunction was issued against the leaders of the ARU. This Omnibus Indictment prevented ARU leaders from “…compelling or inducing by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force or violence, railway employees to refuse or fail to perform duties…”(U.S. Strike Commission Report pp. 179). This injunction was based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act and was issued by federal judges Peter S. Grosscup and William A. Woods under the direction of Attorney General Richard Olney. The injunction prevented the ARU leadership from communicating with their subordinates and chaos began to reign.
So Pullman lays off workers that he can no longer afford to hire, and cuts the pays of remaining employees. The remaining employees feel the pay is insufficient and go on strike. This caused the plant to close. In retaliation, other unions shutdown rail transportation in the city. If rail employees tried to work around the union decisions; they were compelled to comply by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force, or violence.
Continue reading to what started happening on July 4th, and you could easily substitute modern Alton, IL. into the story.
Bilwick1 – this is classic denalism. I say “there were many incidents of anti-union violence. You say “prove it.” I provide a link. You want to argue details of that incident while ignoring the fact that Federal courts of the time were both heavily in the pockets of management and virulently anti-union.
Here – read about Henry Ford’s ‘Battle of the Overpass’ in 1937, where anti-union thugs beat union organizers and women protesters.
Bottom line – the facts are not on your side. You can keep denying the facts if you want, but that doesn’t change anything.
Um, Gerrib. I responded to your nonsense, and yeah, I’d say you are exhibiting clasic denalism (sic). You stated there were many incidents of anti-union violence; you proved it by pointing to an article that doesn’t support your claim. As it doesn’t support your claim, you decided to paraphrase what it said and exempting information from the article that didn’t fit your paraphrase. I then provided additional data that shows reports at the time suggests the type of union violence that Bilwick was claiming.
Now, you want to say that the courts were corrupt with no citation? And then claim there are no facts on Bilwick’s side? That’s funny shit there, Gerrib. Thanks for playing, but you are Epic Fail.
Oh, and your new link to Battle of the Overpass… it goes to wikipedia, which then links to a source that doesn’t seem to exist. Alas, I won’t deny the Battle of the Overpass didn’t happen, but if you are going to claim 2 guys being beaten is example of corporate violence against unions; then might I introduce you to Kenneth Gladney? I’m sure you wouldn’t deny that violence just because wikipedia doesn’t have a link?
Gerrib seems unable to comment on anything without adding some element of distortion to it. I wasn’t “denying” anything. All I was asking for was some evidence. Given that it has ben established here many times, on many occasions, that Gerrib is a chronic purveyor of buncomb and spastic regurgitator of whatever the State-humping faction’s party-line is–not to mention that he seems a tad deficient in the reasoning department–I think that was a rational request. I’ll take a closer look at the articles later, in the interest of fairness; but my initial reaction at first glance would be that if anyone beat up a commie like Walter Reuther, it should be at most a misdemeanor. But I kid,.Even if the Ford minions were guilty of aggressive force , so what? Where does one act of aggressive force justify another? In terms of coercion, who is the bigger aggressor–Henry Ford or the Progressives?
When unions gain the power to compel membership or financial support, they gain the power to be abusive. Here in California, public employee unions have the power to compel a “representation fee” from state workers who choose not to be members, and have used their power to bring the state to ruin.
I expect the reason public employee unionization rates are high is because of such power to compel membership.
Let unions exist, but absolutely forbid them to coerce membership or support from unwilling workers.
Leland I find it difficult to tell you apart from Bilwick, as you are both denialists of history. See, Leland, if you actually knew anything about history, you’d know there were literally hundreds of incidents of anti-union violence. But instead you choose to quibble and argue. Relying on the Strike Commission report is like asking the SS if they were engaged in war crimes.
Bilwick – again with the denialism. See, if you’d actually read what I linked, you’d have discovered that those doing the beating were part of an organization of over 2,000 Ford employees specifically hired to use force to prevent unionization. You’d also know that the “two guys” were just the ones the cameraman caught before he had to flee (to avoid a beating).
You are both relying on made-up history to support a theory. Since there are none so deaf as those that will not hear, I’ll stop talking.
Well Gerrib, if there are literally hundreds, then perhaps you can point to a few examples that hold up. So far, you have left me having to find my own evidence of any of your examples, and only one, the story of 2 people getting beaten, has held up. I gave you an example of a beating that happened about a year ago, and you haven’t acknowledged it.
As for claims that I, Bilwick, or anyone else is making up history of union violence, well maybe you’ll take some time to hear this. As for unions helping people get jobs, what about this or this?
See, if you’d actually read what I linked, you’d have discovered that those doing the beating were part of an organization of over 2,000 Ford employees specifically hired to use force to prevent unionization.
Actually, if you click the link Gerrib provided, you won’t find any mention what so ever about 2,000 Ford employees. In fact, the only number provided is 9,000 employees to be antagonized by Reuther. Don’t trust me though, click Gerrib’s link.
But I did see this at Gerrib’s link:
The group then beat some of the beret-wearing women arriving to pass out leaflets, along with some reporters and photographers, while Dearborn police at the scene largely ignored the violence.
No citation confirms this, but it did remind me of this, which includes video evidence. But I’m sure Gerrib will claim I’m making it up.
Labor unions are necessary. Otherwise it may not be possible for workers to negotiate in a position of similar force to the corporation.
Your argument does not prove unions necessary. I’ve blogged my long winded response.
Again, Gerrib–WHAT AM I DENYING??? Is your grasp of English now as atrophied as your grasp of logic and basic economics?
I mean, really, the rest of you guys: is this guy just gone completely stupid?