Deep down, every freedom-loving American should be against compulsion. --Sandra CrandallHear hear.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Union Membership--My 1000th Post
I was discussing compulsory union membership with a new friend this weekend, and she said something so profound that I had to write it down. Considering how many times I've written about unions or about America/patriotism, I offer up her quote as my 1000th post here on Right On The Left Coast:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The very notion that you can be required to join any group as a condition of employment -- especially public employment -- is offensive to fundamental American values. If unions, why not churches, political parties, or the KKK? After all, the same argument can be made that it is "for the good of the worker" -- evn if the worker fundamentally disagrees.
Working in a Right To Work state, we don't have unions as such. And I am always wary of any organization that wants part of my paycheck to allegedly help me. I have seen some of the union folks and in the lower levels they are sincere and helpful. But I have also seen the national agenda of affiliated groups and while I agree with some of their observations, I don't fall in line lockstep. And that's the whole sticker for me. It's the same with political parties lately as well. It's as if their is the litmus test for every single thought in your head, and agreeing 90% of the time just isn't good enough. I ditched Rush in college because I didn't like the One Mind mentality of many sororities. I avoid professional organizations with hidden agendas for similar reasons. The only groups I belong to are ones that have very specific and narrow goals. When organizations, whether they be unions or even professional groups such as the State Bar Association or the Benevolent Order of Podiatrists, start to bleed their ideas above and beyond what they do in life, then it's just another lobbying group. And the last thing we need is more lobbyists.
Good for you Darren.
Grats on the lady friend.
And here I thought you were gay.
Deep down, every freedom-loving American should be against compulsion. --Sandra Crandall
************
Unless one is talking about removing ones hat upon entering a building.
But then again, consistency has never been a strong suit among the far right extremists.
The fact that you put any thought at all into my sexual tastes is somewhat disconcerting.
Unless you're interested, of course =)
You thought Mr. Miller was gay?
I guess you've never seen any of his "remember the 80's" outfits. He's definitely missing the gay gene. I can only imagine what his flat looks like.
"Remember the 80's" "outfits"? Wow! Whoever wrote that obviously doesn't know much about clothing styles in the 80s!
And wondering what my "flat" looks like? That kinda narrows down the list of potential "anonymi", doesn't it?
And it seems, my open-minded anonymous poster, that you subscribe to the belief that gays must be stereotyped. Interesting.
And previous anonymous poster--if you don't see the difference between following established norms and/or rules and being compelled to do other things (like join a union as a condition of employment), then you need to study more.
And if you think I'm a right-wing "extremist", try again. Actually, I challenge you to find two (2) things on which I can rightly be classified a right-wing extremist--except by a leftwing extremist.
Mr Miller:
From your bio I'm guessing you are 35-45 years old. That's way too young to be a curmudgeon. (At least since you live somewhere in California, we don't have to listen to the walking through the snow stories -- ha!)
So when I read your "kids today have no manners" piece, at first I just thought, well, everyone gets to play the old geezer every now and then.
But then the logical inconsistencies hit me. First of all, you admit that you didn't learn the hats off indoors rule until you went off to military school. So you were, what, sixteen then? So why don't you cut everyone else the same amount of slack?
Then a couple of days later, in discussing compulsory union membership, you make the observation that very little in this great country should be required, when voluntary participation should suffice in a free nation. I realize that in one case we are discussing manners and the informal rules that help society to run smoothly, and in the other the issue is membership and dues and mandatory association. But still, the concept of freedom of choice -- to join the union, to keep ones cap on -- is common to both, yet you have diametrically opposing views.
Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance,
Rita in Idaho, where we walk uphill through the snow both ways to and from school.
Established norms?
Did you not, my fine sir, state that you only learned of this established norm while at the university? To me this does not sound like it was very established in the Miller household. Pity. Maybe with some good manners and upbringing, you wouldn't be so closed of mind.
On right and left wing extremism:
I'd say you could be both. You do tend to try to win arguments instead of truly understanding the point of the other side.
Take the comment on your attire and gayness. Sounded pithy to me. But you jump on it like a hobo on a ham sandwich to make some claim that the writer is the bigot, not you. Why the Crossfire mode? Do you somehow feel better about yourself by putting others down? There's a lot of fault to be found out there, but not a lot of understanding, it seems to me.
Hobo and a ham sandwich... I'm wondering how you'll ignore the central point to turn this around as an indictment on my sensitivity to the plight of the homeless.
But seriously. Check out the last hundred or so times that someone has disagreed with you, or even tried to point out something that you might have missed. How quickly do you move to attack the messenger mode?
Is that always the tone of ROTLC, or am leaping to a conclusion from the first couple of pages?
Thank you for listening.
Carl
Carl, I wasn't attacking that person (whose identity I believe I know). I did, however, point out to that person that stereotyping gays is not something that "progressive" folks should do.
It's not an attack. It's a teaching point.
But yes, I will attack on occasion. But not on the occasion of *your* comment, and I welcome the opportunity to explain my reasoning to you.
Previous anonymous, how dare you fault my upbringing when you know nothing about it.
In the Miller household, we didn't *wear* hats. At all. So I didn't know about the manners associated with wearing them. Those who wear them, however, I would expect to know the norms.
I will delete similar comments in the future, but will let this one stand as a testament to the kind of person you are showing yourself to be.
Post a Comment