Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

UNIONS: George Will advocates for the powerful

Letter by Bob Snider, Gig Harbor on Sep. 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm with 33 Comments »
September 8, 2011 1:19 pm

Re: “Government shouldn’t so easily erase individual rights” (George Will column, 9-8).

This opinion piece clearly demonstrates Will’s ability to take a position and then write an argument to support that position regardless of the facts.

Will strongly argues that government has overstepped in regulating employment. He makes it sound like big, bad, burdensome government is picking on poor individual employers by limiting working to 10 hours per day (in the case discussed). He waxes poetic: “The individual possesses inalienable rights – here, liberty of contract – that cannot be legislated away for casual or disreputable reasons.”

So in this case, Will is all in favor of contracts with no limits on what those contracts may contain. He thinks there actually is a contract for most employment situations when in fact it is a case of accepting the possibly ever-changing requirements of an employer.

Also note that the employee who is most likely to have a contract in a corporation is the CEO. Now let’s look at an actual contract situation for regular employees – that of union contracts. The union contract is an excellent example of a group of individuals asserting a right to establish a contract.

Will should be a vigorous advocate for unions. Instead, he has written numerous opinion pieces on unions where he has accused unions of all sorts of nefarious conduct. He has exposed himself to be a shill for rich and powerful interests and devoid of analytical thinking.

Leave a comment Comments → 33
  1. LarryFine says:

    “accused unions of all sorts of nefarious conduct.”

    Have you been paying attention ???

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/09/08/1814440/longshoremen-storm-wash-state.html#disqus_thread

  2. SO “union strife has flared up around the country – most notably in Wisconsin”

    Someone pass the fire extinguisher.

  3. geeterpontiac says:

    The only schill I’ve noticed is Mr. Snider.

  4. xx98411 says:

    “Also note that the employee who is most likely to have a contract in a corporation is the CEO.”

    Have you ever heard of the term “contractors’ I have many a contract with a corporations, small business and individual proprieters… this is so common dude…

  5. Unions also have contracts with the Corporations.

  6. concernedtacoma7 says:

    The author forgets that there are sides to an employee/employer relationship. Both sides enter willingly.

    “Will should be a vigorous advocate for unions”- he should advocate for whatever he thinks is correct. Who are you to determine what he should or should not advocate for, Bob? You should advocate against unions. Look across the harbor…

    The CEO line proves his ignorance. No point to be made by bringing up the title CEO, just showing that he has been brainwashed to think ‘CEO=bad’.

  7. old_benjamin says:

    LONGVIEW, Wash. — A federal judge is ordering union protesters to halt illegal activity as they battle for the right to work at a new grain terminal in Washington state

    Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/09/08/1814440/longshoremen-storm-wash-state.html#ixzz1XP8oSiTq

  8. aislander says:

    I heard the thugs are holding six guards hostage, old_benjamin, but don’t yet have corroboration. My step-father wore a scar on his forehead courtesy of some teamsters goons, so I am inclined to believe what I heard this morning…

  9. aislander says:

    I have no problem with unionization if it is what the employees want, but government has its thumb heavily on the scale in favor of unions. But a level playing field? No way.

  10. xx98411 says:

    Test post…

  11. KARDNOS says:

    It’s rather comical how the Conservatives have such a short memory.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/teabaggers-try-to-shout-down-health-care-reform-at-town-halls.php

    Remember the good old days when those that closed down town hall meetings and conducted violence were TEA Party members?

    Kinda funny how you can point your finger at angry union members….huh?+

  12. xx98411 says:

    they didn’t take anybody hostage nor did any damage to equipment… jeeze dude

  13. ItalianSpring says:

    Larry- so right as usual.

  14. LarryFine says:

    Kooky that wallpaper links a talking points memo to try to d.o.c.

  15. whinemaking so early in the morning?

  16. I guess what LF is trying to deny is that tea party members shouted down town hall meetings and issued death threats against congressional reps

    How soon they think we forget.

  17. concern7
    The right buys into the non-fact that the reason there is a debt is because those earning less than 50K per year are not paying their fire share of federal taxes. (which by right wing math works out to about 50% of the total tax burden)

    xx,
    You are missing the amount and percent of income going to the 10%, along with the fact that most tax breaks favor them and not the working and middle classes (i.e. those who earn less than $250K per year.

    ‘didn’t damage equipment’ tell that to the members of Congress who had their homes and offices vandalized by the tea pots.

    islander,
    Your problem is the right does not have a consistent set of definitions.

    Some states have an income tax, some have a sale tax, and some have both.

    You need to think about that before making grandiose statements about progressive taxation in America.

  18. “xx98411 says:
    September 9, 2011 at 7:40 am
    they didn’t take anybody hostage nor did any damage to equipment… jeeze dude ”

    Nope…just death threats against a Senator and congressmen…..

    I guess that is OK….huh?

  19. old_benjamin says:

    “Remember the good old days when those that closed down town hall meetings and conducted violence were TEA Party members?”

    No, don’t remember any violence, and the article you cited certainly doesn’t confirm, it. Violence is like property destruction or injury to someone, isn’t it?
    Shouting from the audience is a very low bar.

  20. LarryFine says:

    I fail to find any comparision between shouting and wielding baseball bats and crowbars – overwhelming police, breaking into a terminal, holding security guards hostage and sabotaging boxcars.

    What can I say …Kooky

  21. If it does not bother you that Hoffa referred to the union as the president’s army, you simply are not paying attention.

  22. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Here is another example of our union leadership acting, well, you can make up your own mind-

    http://www.aflcio.org/911_trumka.cfm

    ” hope you will join me in marking this solemn anniversary by committing to redouble your activism”

  23. L_F

    Boston Tea Party, Haymarket Riot, Homesteed Strike.

  24. xx98411 says:

    The longshoreman illegally entered a facility, held guards against their will and commited destruction of corporate property… and you attempt to equate that with the Tea Party for one, loud mouths for two… goood try… no actually a pathetic try.

    Agian with pointing to “bad behavior” in an attempt to divert or excuse the longshoreman… as I said pathetic try.

  25. LarryFine says:

    … as I said “I fail to find any comparision between shouting and wielding baseball bats and crowbars – overwhelming police, breaking into a terminal, holding security guards hostage and sabotaging boxcars.”

  26. Really like the immediate D.O.C. by LF with the first post – completely divert the topic to one specific, unrelated, episode rather than what the letter or the original article was discussing.

  27. The letter writer opened the door to everything being discussed here bBoy. Perhaps it was his use of the line “nefarious conduct.” I know it jumped off the page for me!

  28. sozo – reaching pretty far to justify a tangent there……

  29. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Funny how no one from the left on this board has condemned the actions of union members recently, to include Hoffa’s speech, the violent strikers, or Hoffa’s letter using 9/11 at political tool.

    The left jumped all over Palin for a political prop (which had absolutely nothing to do with the incident) yet gives Hoffa and our VP a pass for their messages of violence.

    BB does not like the conversation even though it is current and right on point. Bush is not to blame so the left is out of arguments.

  30. or Hoffa’s letter using 9/11 at political tool.

    If we are going to condemn everyone who used 9/11 as a political tool, I’m thinking the list will be awful long.

    But sure…. I condemn anyone and everyone (starting with the Bush Administration) who bolstered their agenda on the ashes of the Twin Towers.

  31. LarryFine says:

    You stalking me bB?
    .
    The writer whines that Will “has written numerous opinion pieces on unions where he has accused unions of all sorts of nefarious conduct.” … which implies they have carried out “nefarious conduct” .

    I graciously gave such an illustration of said conduct…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0