Quote Originally Posted by Andres View Post
I'm flabbergasted, really.

The idea that a company would fire you if you try to unionise to ask to get paid a bit more than a fricking 4 dollar an hour. And you have politicians defending such companies? What morons vote for such inhuman beings? In who's interest exactly is it that it is perfectly legal that people get paid 4 $ an hour? Why do you guys take that kind of crap?

Oh yes, there are probably thousands of people waiting to get that crappy 4 $ an hour job, because it's better than nothing.

Meh. You guys should go on strike and the unemployed should simply refuse such jobs. You need a few protest marches. This is a disgrace. How can you possibly encourage or even defend blatant exploitation of people in the name of "freedom" and "a free market" and at the same time still be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

4 $ an hour and the illusion that you'll get tips? And you have to use your own car for delivering pizza's? They can't give you a bike from the company?

Our unions here in Europe are sometimes nothing more than a bunch of spoiled brats, but clearly, in the US, unions are urgently needed and you guys need to go on strike and protest asap. Ignore the shareholders and employers' that you'll make things worse and that you're communists. Why would anyone accept this?
(Cue someone right wing here talking about everything that is wrong is because of unions.) But seriously, for all we love to talk about wanting a free market. We don't. The fact is that companies have politicans in their pockets from borderline bribes and massive donations that politicians need to stay in office. These companies become protected monopolies/colluding oligopolies or are rewarded with heavy subsidizing or both. Then when someone tries to say, "Hey, maybe we should have campaigns be publicly funded and take the money out of the equation. That way politicians don't need to suck a lobbyists **** and provide lots of company protections in order to win. They will have to focus more on what the public wants and have to make a case why they are better because they can't simply outspend their opponent either.". But then the same people who love to talk about free markets come in and say that money is free speech and people, even companies, should be able to out spend other constituents in a bid to see who the representative deems is more equal than others.

So obviously the solution is less unions and simply to have the government not get involved in the economy or business in any way. Let's just forget about the fact that as long as companies are merely taxed (lets pretend all oversight and regulations were stripped away for the free market to handle), they will still have politicians get involved in the economy to re institute laws that will benefit them. Much in the same way how the Sherman Anti Trust Act was actually a huge failure for the public for the first five years of it due to companies being able to persuade judges to declare that it also applied to unions as well (which led to a lot of union busting).