Practical definition: Workers

Posted by Marc Hodak on October 27, 2007 under Practical definitions | 4 Comments to Read

John Edwards released a statement giving some details about how he would erode our liberty. In the introduction alone, he mentions “social compact/contract” seven times, which should give you an idea of how he bends in the trade-off between individual rights and collective obligations. I’ve already provided a practical definition of social contract, which sounds all pleasant (social) and legal (contract):

“Social contract” – Those with political power telling everyone else what to do.

Contrast with this:

“Brute-force collectivism” – Those with political power telling everyone else what to do.

Today, I want to highlight one of the groups Edwards wants to empower–regular workers. Here is what he means by that:

“Regular worker” – Union member, or someone who isn’t a union member, but should be.

Edwards clearly believes this is a potent constituency:

Unions helped ensure that regular workers were part of the social contract in the last century, but today the right to unionize is poorly enforced and routinely violated by employers…The share of workers covered by union contracts has fallen by nearly half since 1978. To help the 60 million workers who would join a union if they could, Edwards will pass the Employee Free Choice Act to let workers unionize when a majority of them sign cards… He will also ban the permanent replacement of strikers to give workers the leverage to demand their fair share of rewards for their work

Here is where delusion might do him in. Edwards may be able to convince himself that this “60 million” number is real. Or, even if he knows its bogus, he may be able to convince the unions that he deserves their support with statements like this. Among non-union workers, no doubt, many of them would like to join a union. They should be free to do so in non-coercive elections. But if he thinks that he won’t alienate the 55 percent of workers that would rather slurp freshly wretched bile than join (or remain in) a union, then he is in for an even bigger loss than he’s already courting.

  • KipEsquire said,

    “the Employee Free Choice Act to let workers unionize”

    No, they FORCE workers to unionize.

    Details, detail…

  • Kat said,

    My father is the only one in his company who absolutely refused to join the union. He’s better off for it.

    John Edwards is satan. The worst part is that he’s from the town in which I grew up.

  • M. Hodak said,

    Dad’s lucky he was in a Right-to-work state. In many states, the union would have told him he’s not allowed to work if he doesn’t join.

  • Kat said,

    Yes, he is, Marc.

    He used to be in a state that didn’t give him that option. It was called the USSR. He had enough of unions there.

    I’ve always been bothered by the fact that unions are exempted from the rules that government has for every other monopoly. In cities like ours (NYC) we are held hostage by various labour monopolies like the Transit Workers Union. Remember the strike a couple of years ago? Unions are one reason I’m moving out of the city.