It's Not About the Money(totally at least).

In the next few weeks, members of the CWA, which is the call workers union, will possibly go on strike. If the union goes on strike I will be crossing the picket line to go to work, the derogatory term is SCAB. As mentioned in previous posts I did not join the union, and I have, as people have asked at work why this is, explained to them my general position on unions. I am writing this post because the most common reaction that I have been getting, as I have told people that I will be crossing the picket line, is that I am doing it for the money. Though I unapolagetically admit that if I participated in a strike lasting more than about a week we would, as a family, possibly be in trouble financially. If it was only about the money, with no other reason behind my decision, I would take the week off and enjoy the free time with my family. So let me explain the reasons behind my decision to be a SCAB.

In the struggle between liberty and freedom versus tyranny and force I have made a personal decision to always side with liberty and freedom. I believe that this is an eternal struggle that began at the foundations of this earth. This struggle pervades our liturature throughout history, all of the great authors have written about it. As I have studied, read and learned more about this struggle I have realized how ignorant I have been for a long time. I have begun to see this struggle all around me, and I am amazed and anxious at how few people are currently siding with freedom and liberty.

To understand how this applies to my current situation with the CWA, let me have a short discussion about rights. What is a right? I am not talking about the concept that popular culture throws around that is synonimous with entitlement, and means that if I need it to survive I have a right to it. I am talking about natural rights, rights that naturally flow to us, some say from God. These existed before government, and exist even if government attempts to legislate them away, which has occured right here in the US with ever increasing frequency, explicitly in opposition to the Constitution of the US. The natural right is only afforded to an individual and boils down to an individual should be free from force. There is no such thing as a natural group right. This is what is so pernicious about the class warfare that was brought to our shores here in the US, where previously the individual was considered supreme, and was protected by the Constitution and the rule of law, now in its place we have the group, a concept heavily propogated by the followers of Marx and Engels, and accepted more and more among the main stream of American society. We now have the bourgeoisie and the proletariate; we have been divided into upper, middle and lower class; we have been pitted against each other and told that the upper class is evil and would step on the throats of children to make more money. This is a ridiculous assertion, perpetuated by the upper class within the government to increase their own power and wealth, where, in the great majority of business owners, who are demonized every day by polititians and others who benefit personally from this propoganda(including union representation), are providing the means of living for groups of individuals ranging from a single employee to thousands(as is the case with AT&T), and not only providing a comfortable living for them, but paying for their health care, and saving for their retirement. On top of all of this great benefit that these business owners are providing to all of these people, look at the charitable contributions given by the "upper class"; if these evil business owners went away, which is what some seem to be advocating, all private charities, that do so much good in the world, would disapear. Not only would private charities disapear, but government, both federal and state would have a hard time meeting their constitutional responsibilities, let alone all the crap that they are trying to do these days.

The proper role of government is to protect the natural rights of the individual. Unions, and I am talking about all unions, not just the CWA have sought the force of government to compel business owners to sit down and have discussions with the union representatives. They have sought special status as a group, or in other words they are seeking rights that dont exist, and is contrary to freedom and liberty of the individual. They are seeking for the government to say they, as a group, because they have a bunch of people that want it, have more rights than the business owner. All workers of any company have the right to negociate for themselves, or to have somebody negotiate for them for their pay, benefits, etc. They are free to accept or reject the terms of their employment, they are free to show up to work or go on strike. Business owners(also individuals) also should have freedom to do the same with his employees, that is, negotiate directly with or have somebody negotiate with the employees he/she hires. They should be free to keep or fire an employee based on the pre conditioned agreement that was established upon hiring that employee, and if an employee or group of employees dont show up for a scheduled day of work they should be free to fire them if it breaks the original agreement.

Unions in my mind represent almost all that is wrong with the direction of our country at this time. They seek force where freedom should be protected, they seek special "rights" where none exist and equal protection should be the standard.

I AM A SCAB, not because of the money I would lose by not going on strike, but because I believe in something larger than myself, and is more important to me than the few associations I might lose because of ignorance. I am proud to stand on the side of freedom and liberty, and always will be.

Response to the CWA

In this post I will respond to some assertions that the CWA has made in a pamphlet they used for their "Lunchtime Lingo", which was supposed to be a discussion they had during their lunchtime about union issues. Here is a link to the original pamphlet http://files.cwa-union.org/district6/Lunchtimelingo22709.pdf .

Under the section "Collective Bargaining is a Public Good"

"-It strengthens our democracy. You can't have a democracy without strong, independent, democratic unions."

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

First off, this country was never intended to be a pure democracy. On the other hand if you are talking about the more loose definition of democracy, as in our representative government that we currently have, the second part of this statement by the CWA is obviously false since this country prospered for almost 200 years without a strong union presence.

"-It raises everyone's wages, not just union members."

The immediate effect of a labor union forcing a certain wage on an employer is for the employer to downsize the positions that are not worth whatever that minimum wage is. All you have to do is look at what happened to the percentage of teenage employment as the government has implemented the minimum wage, and continued to raise it.
For a longer term effect lets take a look at industries that the unions have traditionally had a strong presence in.
Mining
Steel working
Textile
Auto
Teaching
In every instance the union has taken a thriving US industry and destroyed it. Though there is a temporary boost to the current workers' pay and benefits, it ultimately hurts more people than it helps.

"-It reduces wage inequality and demands that workers get a fair share of the profits."

This assertion is one of the most ridiculous statements I have encountered in a long time. No employee of any company is entitled to the profits of the company they work for. Each of us as individuals has a certain skill set we are able to trade to the company that we work for in exchange for an hourly wage or yearly salary. In every instance the individual willing to work for that wage, values that wage more than the time they are spending working for that company, and the company values the work that employee is doing more than the money they spend for that employee. It is a fair trade, I cannot think of a rational argument that someone could make that would show where an employee of a company is entitled to the profits of that company.

"-It promotes political participation by workers."

If by political participation they mean confiscating union dues straight out of paychecks, and donating them to the Democrat candidates on behalf of the union membership regardless of the approval of the members, I guess you are technically right there.

"-It promotes healthy and safe work environments."

It is a good thing they are on top of this, or else people would be losing limbs every day over there in the call center.

-On page four of the pamphlet

"The middle class is shrinking."

While this is true, the lower class is not where they are going. The lower class is actually shrinking along with the middle class, the class that is growing is the upper middle and upper class which I don't know anyone except a straight up Marxist that would believe this is a bad thing.

I thought I would address in this post some of the easiest points to refute. I welcome comment, and would love a discussion along these lines. Thanks.