Would you cross a picket line?

[opebo]

...unions... have they outlived their usefulness?  I think that in such an informed, instantly gratified, and mobile society such as that in which modern humans in developed countries exist, they have.  I have been sufficiently trained in looking up stuff that I don't need some knuckle-dragging, cigar-smoking, fat ganster/laywer telling me that he'll "take care of me."  I'm quite capable of doing the the search to find out what benefits are generally afforded people of my qualifications.  I'm capable of negotiating, one-on-one and usually by telephone, with prospective employers.  I'm aware of the differences between various retirement and health plans.  Really, we're a fairly educated and mobile public.  We simply don't need unions.

angus, you are showing tactlessness at the very least, and I would argue poor judgement at the worste.  Perhaps you are the worker you imagine yourself to be - so highly qualifed and 'in demand' that you in fact can 'take care of yourself'.  But this is in itself a priviledge of yours, and you are being rather flippantly insulting to your less fortunate brethren who, though they may be able to look up stuff on the internet about how up sh**t creek they are, are none the less up there.  What good does it do a chap at wal-mart or mcdonalds to have more 'acess to information'?  He damned well needs that fat cigar-smoking guy to help him - in other words he needs a little power, as he currently has absolutely none at all. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, those organized mobs are the only thing that has every benefited the common worker in the United States!  In their absence the legislatures will return solely to their main employment - protecting and serving the Owning Class.  Why on earth you cannot see that the main mob is not a mob, while you critique the very minor ones who have managed to resist them slightly I do not understand.  I suppose it comes down to the fact that the owner-mob has always controlled what goes into your head in the form of education, propaganda, etc. 

You seem like a guy who would LIKE to beleive he's a free thinker.. so please question some of this pap you've been fed since birth.

[angus]

that pimply-faced punk who flips your burger probably is more adept than you when it comes to cell-phoning, internet gaming, and fact-finding on the world wide web.  This isn't an insult, old man.  Just a fact of social evolution.  The rest of your post is largely hubris and pugilism disguised as patronage and doesn't merit a response, except that I will say that I was fed, since birth, that pro-union pap.  I simply outgrew it.  Don't mistake me for anyone you'd consider priveleged.  Any privelege I enjoy was bought or stolen through my own efforts.  We all have roughly equal access to information.  And information is power.  Therefore, your assumptions regarding power are antiquated.

[CPT MikeyMike]

I would absolutely cross one but I would make sure I was armed if I did.

[opebo]

that pimply-faced punk who flips your burger probably is more adept than you when it comes to cell-phoning, internet gaming, and fact-finding on the world wide web.  This isn't an insult, old man.  Just a fact of social evolution.

angus, if you actually read my post, you will find that I never suggested that he did not have access to imforation - it was precisely my point that though he has it, it does him no good at all! 

Though as an aside I would dispute your idea that burgeur-flippers are youths - back in St. Louis they were just black people, of widely varying ages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, that's rich (in the sense of hilarious).  Yet another horatio alger deception, angus.  Power is simply power, angus.  Access to force.  In our society it is generally accessed or held through money, assets, title to property.  You can know about all you want, but you still  have to work for the man with the political power - the owner.  To put a finer point on it - you are required, as a worker, to 'learn', in order to make yourself useful to him.  As we can see in the case of our fine president, the owner does not have to learn anything.

[Jake]

I see no reason why not.

[angus]

you are required, as a worker, to 'learn', in order to make yourself useful to him.  As we can see in the case of our fine president, the owner does not have to learn anything.

let's examine that.  George W. Bush's father buys the Texas Ranger for him.  Well, more precisely, Mr. Bush was named managing general partner of the club.  Soon thereafter Sammy Sosa, a worker, has a tough season, so Bush trades him to the white sox for a mango yogurt recipe.  I think the exact quote was, "The reason I like to keep Nolan around is he is a reminder that when we got done with the Sammy Sosa trade, there was still some talent on the Rangers."  Of course Sosa goes on to be traded to the cross-town rival Cubs and eventually becomes a major legend.  Sure, Sosa spent his youth in la Republica Dominicana with several options, among them flipping burgers and learning to surf the internet.  But he developed his talents.  He "learned" as you might say, and thus made himself useful to the "owning class."  Of course he wasn't without talent, but the point is that he did have freedom.  He had the freedom to pursue his talents and to become whatever he wanted.  Famous, apparently, and somewhat wealthy (depending on your definition thereof).  Bush, on the other hand, had security.  Something Sammy didn't have.  Bush could count on Daddy buying him a baseball team.  What Bush couldn't count on was the fact that Sammy would never be heard from again, thereby vindicating his decision to trade.  Moreover, Bush didn't learn anything from his mistake.  He continued to make bad team decisions.  Yes, I know Bush's critics have sometimes joked--as they did of his father--that he was ''born on third base and thought he hit a triple.''  In fact, the full context of Bush's business dealings provides a somewhat different metaphor:  This is the story of a man who struck out numerous times before being bailed out by big hitters who often were family members, friends, or supporters of his father.  This isn't freedom.  By definition, it's security.  And, to put a finer point on it, is my counterargument here about Bush. 

Still I think the information is the source of power.  And none of it requires the middle-level management that unions provide.  And there's no good reason for me (or you) to allow a group of thugs to keep us from buying any product from any supplier with your own hard-earned cash.

[opebo]

Still I think the information is the source of power.  And none of it requires the middle-level management that unions provide.  And there's no good reason for me (or you) to allow a group of thugs to keep us from buying any product from any supplier with your own hard-earned cash.

Dude, the suppliers are all 'thugs' as well.  Your fanciful notion of a 'free market' is an extraordinarly poor attempt to explain how society works.  Yes, you can buy from owner A or owner B, but why do they have anything to 'sell'?  Because the State has empowered them to take by force.  If A's government is that much more brutal then A will sell 'cheaper', and that's why B (in this case the US owner) wants to eliminate the very small contrarian influence of his opposing interests - the thugs who help the workers: the unions.

[Friz]

Depends on if I could get laid by crossing it.