[LWC]

I disagree with most of what you said above. Despite many abuses by some employers in the 20th century, the average worker's standard of living was much higher than it was during any period of history that preceded it. The key for workers getting higher wages and better working conditions is not organized labor but full employment. When a worker can quit one job and be confident that two more jobs are waiting for him, employers (capital) competes for labor with higher wages and better working conditions and benefits. Unions would have gotten nowhere in the last century if they had not had something that was in demand.

When employers enjoy monopolies, the unemployment rate is high, or in special cases such as coal mining during the early 20th century (where geography an transportation issues created an almost captive work force), I agree that there will always be employers who will exploit the situation by offering low wages, company owned stores, etc.

However, one needs only look to modern day China to see that as the demand for workers rises, wages naturally rise, and living conditions improve. While it is true that most people living in China are still very poor, even compared to American welfare recipients, skilled labor is in great demand and the plight of many workers has drastically improved without the benefit of trade unions.

I work in a profession that has never been unionized but I have skills for which the demand is still strong, as long as I am willing to relocate to where work is available. I compete for jobs with computer programmers from India, the Middle East, South Korea, and elsewhere who are in this country to meet the demand for labor. If and when there is a surplus of programmers available, then my salary will plummet and no union could prevent that from happening.

The problem in this country is that social engineering has created a disincentive for poor people to work and placed an ever increasing financial burden on businesses through high taxes and a ridiculous number of unnecessary regulations. Not content to saddle American businesses with the burden of supporting our growing welfare state, our elected representatives are borrowing money at an unprecedented rate.

The longer that these problems remain unresolved and as long as we put foxes like Barack Obama in charge of the hen house, the more likely that our entire economic system will collapse under the weight of state and federal bureaucracies.

As for unions, they have their place but IMO, they have no place in any level of government. If state and federal employees do not like their wages and benefits, then the ballot box offers an effective remedy for them. Politicians should never be in position to buy votes by negotiating generous contracts with somebody else's money.

I agree with what you are saying, but what you are referring to is a Utopia. We will never have a perfect economy. 100% of the country will never have a job. There are disabled people, injured workers, home-makers, etc...

Also, as much as I want to believe that if all government regulations were taken off of owners/business, they would be fair, I just can't. Even if geography has nothing to do with it, greed plays a large part. There are too many employers today that take factories away from skilled workers and ship them overseas to .25 cents per hour workers, make an inferior product and pocket the rest. Why would they employ U.S. citizens that want $12 per hour, medical care and vacation days?

As I mentioned in my post, I do not think the entire burden of government income should rest on the filthy rich and I do not think people that CAN work should sit on their behinds.

So much can get done when compromise happens, not when two sides cross their arms and ignore each other. Even Baptists and Methodists can agree on KFC after church, lol. The US government should not cut off nose, despite the face.