Donations?

I’ve always been an anti-union guy, mainly because unionization all but eliminates individual incentives to achieve. The concept of providing the biggest raises and bonuses based on performance is a basic (and necessary) concept for any business that wants to be successful — this makes unionization a formula for failure.

I know that back when unions were first conceived and formed they WERE necessary because working conditions in many shops were beyond disgusting, they were dangerous and many people ran their businesses like slave-owners ran their plantations. In truth there are, without a doubt, still some (possibly many) businesses that provide sub-standard wages and terrible, dangerous working conditions; the people who work in this kind of place are usually either so unskilled they have few other choices or are, in some other way, locked into working there. These people DO need unions but will never get them without walking out and refusing to work until the pay and conditions are improved.

Beyond these special situations, however, unionization is the most counterproductive step a business can take. A look at what the unions have done to the auto industry should be all the proof you need.

To me, what is most reprehensible about unions is their ability to buy politicians — and that is not an exaggerated claim. This Investors Business Daily Editorial about the proposed National Health Care plan supports this notion of unions having politicians “in their pockets”. A key excerpt:

“Spending a trillion dollars as a down payment for a government takeover of health care is a dream of many Democrats. The current plan in Congress would create a government insurance plan that would drive out the private ones.

The problem, though, is the cost. Even moderate Democrats are having second thoughts about that, as well as all the quality problems associated with socialized medicine. Even so, health care nationalization’s biggest boosters are cooking up bad new plans.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., both would like to slap a tax on private health plans to pay for a new government one.

But they’ve carved out one very big exception: unions and their gold-plated benefit packages. This effectively gives Big Labor an advantage in the market and forces nonunion workers to subsidize unions for their share of this bad idea.

The logic behind this tax giveaway is that union health plans, which are lavish, would be subject to higher taxes than those of workers with regular private sector health care plans.

According to news reports, if unions get a special tax break for themselves on health care taxes, they’ll gladly muscle “their” Congress members into supporting a “public option” health care bill.

In short, it’s little more than a political payoff to unions for spending $400 million in campaign cash to elect Democrats to Congress and the White House last year. As if the outrageous favors they’ve received from the auto bailouts aren’t enough.

This article, pointing out the unions influence on “THEIR” congresspeople is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. Literally hundreds of special interest groups are OWED FAVORS by those in the House and Senate (Republicans as well as Democrats) who accepted their generous “donations;” and those favors are being granted daily — by us — through the use of our tax dollars. While on the subject, let’s not forget our president who is eagerly ‘paying back’ unions, for helping to get him elected, by pushing “card check.”

Having crooks and lowlifes in the seat of government with their focus primarily on winning their NEXT election seems to me to be a very stupid way to run a country!

My other homes for my posts are: My View From the Center and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

Be Sociable, Share!