UPS, Help me understand

J. Prescott jprescot at PRIMENET.COM
Wed Aug 6 00:33:10 MDT 1997

> From: Gary Freitag <gfreitag at GREATBATCH.COM>
> Subject: Re: UPS, Help me understand
> Date: Tuesday, August 05, 1997 2:13 PM
> jp writes:
> >pardon me, but this reasoning seems to be void of any.  in order to
> >apply
> >your logic, you must first establish the NEED for a union.  once you can
> >make that establishment, THEN you can argue for whatever structuring or
> >implementation you desire.  WITHOUT such an establishment, all your
> >arguments are in vain, & can be easily dismissed from the mere LACK
> >thereof.
> I don't have to establish need, the market should determine that.  If
> there is indeed no need (better phrased as benefit), unions should dry
> up.  But under current law, they will never dry up because they are
> given power by law.  They don't have to establish need.  I am
> suggesting a system that imposes "need" as a condition for their
> survival.

market, as the term is used here, does NOT establish need.  in fact,
whenever market tries to establish need it will usually be met with some
level of resistance.  in the rule of economics in a "free" economy, markets
must IDENTIFY & RESPOND to the need that exists.  now it may well be argued
that the market can *increase* DEMAND, but not the need.

as for being granted power by law, i would have to take exception to your
choice of wording.  unions are a protected entity in that they have been
given a legal identity.  once the identity was established, then they were
granted their "rights" & the framework within which they could exist &
operate.  as to your last sentence in the above paragraph, you have given a
shining example of what i stated above - the unions TRY to create the
"need", but a genuine need does not exist in virtually all cases, so they
have to resort to fear & bullying to make the appearance look less than

> Do not limit your view of a union based on the current model
> established and defined in the US.  Unions are not the only structure
> that labor can be marketed under.  There are other organizations that
> handle labor, such as employment agencies, contract agencies, agents,
> professional societies.  Who knows what varied forms of representation
> may exist?
> >the simple fact of the matter is that if there was any genuine need for
> >unions today, the unions would simply be able to make their presence
> >known
> >& people would flock TO them.  but instead, they resort to thuggery
> >tactics, which displays to me that even THEY know they serve no
> >legitimate
> >purpose - outside of their own self-serving interests.
> Do not confuse "need" with "ease".  If one could simply fill out a
> form, send in your dues and belong to a labor union, more people may
> belong to one.  However, I have no legal right to belong to a union
> unless every other employee I work with also has the desire to join the
> same union.  It is an difficult, complicated process, no doubt limiting
> the number of people belonging to unions.
> Even if there were no reason for having unions today, who is to say
> that the pendulum of power over labor will not shift in the future?

> A company attempts to pay as little as necessary for my services.  I
> attempt to get as much as I can for them.  It is either by market or by
> law that keeps either side from taking advantage of the other; a battle
> of special interests that is played out on many fronts.
> gary
> gfreitag at

when you boil it all down to it simplest form, this is exactly right.  &
based on what i know of any of the other systems of recompence around the
world & through the ages, this seems to have succeeded in any society that
has ever endeavored to employ it.  it may have it's flaws, but it works.
pure & simple.  governments that involve themselves to the end of
equalizing the playing field of OPPORTUNITY well serve its people, unlike
those that try to equalize the field of OUTCOME.


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list