Re: agree ka na lang.

Cheeze wrote: 

Not really.  If you are looking for my interest in the subject its
probably more because I have lawyered for many employers.  And in some
cases, I have seen some very destructive unions and I have come to
regard them in general (but not discounting few exceptions) to be bad
for the economy.

I haven't disagreed on that one, what makes the discussion so long? 


The real problem is that once you say something, they intend to prove me
wrong, oh yes, because I am a Commie? Hog wash, they don't even know
what I am. Yes, I have friends on the left, and the right of the
political spectrum and we argue about the same exact thing we are
discussing here.

Points:
1. Are the poor to blame for their plight?



More accurately, are the rich to blame for the existence of poverty.
What I would like to erase is the image of Robin Hood as a hero who
stole from the rich and gave to the poor.  It should not be forgotten
that he stole from the thieving rich, those who exacted taxes on a
hapless populace who had no choice but to pay.

Robin Hood is based on application of justice, not between the plight of rich and poor. Justice can be written so that the middle class, in this case Robin, can be stripped of his position easily by a corrupt ruler, the sherif and royalty. 

The noble aspect of money is that it is supposed to represent
productivity, but for that to be an accurate representation of
productivity, it must always be transacted with complete freedom
between two parties who are free to act according to their rational
self interest.

Agreed, infact, I have nothing wrong with greed per se, what is wrong is when it gets too far, that goes the same with the other side of the coin, of course this part of my posts have not even been considered for discussion.


2. Are the rich deserving of their position? 


Only in a just society.

I actually think that most of them do, some who got their station was done by illegal means, like theft, they don't deserve that.

3. Employers; how much rights do they really have? 


No more than employees.



4. Employees; how much rights do they really have? 


No more than employers.

Both points, I agree.

5. Do union benefit anyone? 


No.

this is where we disagree, they serve a purpose. I was fired once on a whim and I fought it in the courts, I won. In a union shop, this would not happen, no it isn't IBM.

6. Is permanency in employment a right? 


No.


There can never be real and clear answers, I can only give examples. One
prime example I can give is the 20th century's history, the rise of
labor movements and why it rose.

Child labor laws for instance became what it is now because of what was
seen in the newspapers as children's photographs were splashed across
the world's morning eyes. Working conditions are terrible.

Are we going to blame the children? Their parents? The employers?



The employers definitely.  Children cannot be expected to act with free
choice.

Actually all of them can be blamed. Parents not knowing what the conditions are, the employers making it happen, the children not complaining. 

Mining towns where rent is paid to the mining company, including all
utilities, while pay is not enough to cover rent, you owe the rest for food.
The whole mess deteriorated into pure unadulterated rebellion, guns and
all, yes, just like the Victoria rebelion in Ozzieland, Australia has a
long history of rebellions and each one lost to the Queen.


Virginia, Pennsylvania...
Today's sweatshops, in Asia and other third world countries, virtual slaves.


7. Slaves, do they exist, and who are to blame for them?

You can blame those groups of individuals who do the kidanpping and
those who buy the slaves.

Migrant workers even today live in a way few people would, now, that is
a choice, back then before the unions, there is no choice.

It is the union that forced the CHOICE, not the farm owners, they
couldn't care less about that.

Bottom line is choice, you pay me, I'll work for you, IF that is a big
IF I have a choice, contract or no contract, it is an agreement that I
have a choice.

i have no problem with give and take  or with honest disagreement .
heck it  gives the world spice and  taste. but if its only take and
take, then thats  f!@#$%^up.if there is no give or take then what they
really want is  just toadism.  they are the king and  the other is just
a yesman  toady.  i dont play that .

so i dont really care for these type of people. i am not here to be
accepted by them . i  dont exist  in this planet to  curry for their
approval .  like you i got my own circle of friends  and family. i only
stay in this ng  to  converse and exchange  pov.




For Rennie, disagreements come and go, it can go forever. Has nothing to do with currying friendships.
.