[QUOTE=pocketkangaroo;14547716]That's the whole point. Giving the little guy a voice. Corporations have major influence on all levels of politics as well, I don't see how this is any different from what they are doing.
No, the point is to help the people when the company abuses its power. I feel the company shouldn't be around if it has to have a union. Not that a union doesn't help a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
That would mean the closing of just about every school, airline, and sports league in the country. In many cases, the unions have done wonders for the employees (just look at what some of these athletes are making).
|
Why close them? They shouldn't be allowed to donate my money to a political cause that I don't agree with.
Public unions are different than private, however both should not be allowed to voice political views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
I don't understand your point of view. You're saying that a company should be allowed to lobby and participate in politics all they want, but employees who group together should not? Seems kind of unfair that only the wealthy business owners have a voice in Washington. I take it the first amendment only applies to certain people in your mind.
|
I don't think anyone should be allowed to lobby. But it's stiff different to have a company lobby vs a union. A member of the union may not agree to the view, but yet still has to pay. An employee of the company, can have a totally different view, with no problems from the company, and was not forced to pay - and support the company view either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
Blocking them from having any voice seems quite fascist in nature.
|
A union is an organization to help the people. The money it has, is from the people. It should not be allowed to donate multi-millions and millions to anything. At that, it shouldn't have multi-millions to donate or it's being more greedy than the company they tried to correct the greed from.