From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 09:26:37 +0800
To: stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Whistleblowing on the Internet
Message-ID: <01I960XGNBDW9JDL62@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"stewarts@ix.netcom.com"  "Bill Stewart"  3-SEP-1996 06:43:40.27

	I would note that most unions are mostly run by populists of
various varieties, who are generally against individual liberties - whether
liberal or conservative populist doesn't make any real difference in the
long run. To me, Pat Buchannan and Adolf Hitler look rather similar.

>While some unions are clearly run by and for thugs, some employers have
>also hired thugs to attack union organizers, and both unions and employers
>have convinced government thugs to attack their opponents, though unions
>generally have convinced governments to write laws with fines attached,
>while employers have often had actual Federal troops shooting union strikers,
>and have had police refrain from defending strikers from attack.

	I object to union members getting beaten up for union membership,
striking, etcetera, just as much as I object to members of any other
non-governmental organization being beaten activity. But there's a
difference between the right not to get beaten up and someone claiming that
union membership - still less not working - isn't a perfectly legitimate
reason for firing someone. The state should not be interfering in this
matter, in either direction.

>In a free market, there wouldn't be laws requiring or forbidding union
>membership, and some unions would prosper by providing good service to their
>members and to the employers that hire them, while others wouldn't.

	Quite.... but unions that survive under a free market will look a
_lot_ different from today's unions.
	-Allen