GM Strike

ShinerBock wrote:


How does it help US jobs of we have open borders for workers from foreign countries, more free trade agreements, and lower tariffs on countries we already have huge trade discrepancies with?

Trying not to point this that party. I think the country needs a Labor party.
Try to look another way. If you read all of the "free trade agreements" the purpose is to allow open borders for capital.
If worker rights where protected as well as capital rights, I think they could be a good thing. Under most of the agreements, the best place to build a factory would be on a barge. First time a worker asked for another dime, move the factory to another country.

Lantley wrote:

I have no dog in this fight. But the amount of money that unions spend politically, generally to one party, is staggering. tens of millions,
There is something terribly wrong with the system if the unions are donating huge sums of money to causes its members do not support.

Unions do spend a lot of money to rent politicians. But the amount shrinks a lot when you compare to the amount spent by corporations. One of the things one party wants to do is pass the "right to freeload" laws that require the unions to represent all workers, even if the workers do not pay dues. If a worker must have the protections without paying, this will reduce the amount of donations to the other party. The only solution I can see is some kind of public finance of campaigns.

ShinerBock wrote:

1. None of that answered my question about how it help US jobs if we have open borders for workers from foreign countries, more free trade agreements, and lower tariffs on countries we already have huge trade discrepancies with? Sometimes people are focused on short term entitlement promises that they lose sight of the long term.

I tried to address earlier. Which entitlement are you referring to?

2. I understand that you are influenced by union propaganda. I was too at one point. But some of what they say is not reality. Some of it is scare tactics to keep the "us versus them" status quo which keeps them relevant. They have to create this false fear that the company and politicians are out to get you and they are your only savior to keep them in business and profitable. If much of these scare tactics were true, then you would see it in states and factories that do not have a union.

Well I first heard most of this paragraph in the anti-union meetings when a factory was trying to organize, back when I was in my teens. I had to deliver to both ends of a bridge being built over a state border river. Compering just the parking lots, a lot fewer newer pickups on the "right to freeload" state.

I am not saying that there are not bad companies out there. There are good in bad with everything as I said earlier. Companies, government, political parties, and even unions have their bad apples . There is also good in all those things so this notion the union propagates that all companies and politicians on the opposite side are bad and out to get you while only the union and politicians on their favorite are the good ones here to protect you is just pure poffy ****. The facts just do not support this, and I have been on both sides of the card and both sides of the collar.

I agree to most of this. OTOH, Capitalism with no controls we mean that only a few can own any of the means of production. For the workers that produce to get a share of the production, we need either government regulation, or unity between the workers.