Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.
It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:
-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.
If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.
Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.
|
No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.
Now as for
your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it
can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.
Threaded Mode
