: No, unions are about ensuring a minimum wage, its better if people voluntarilly enter into unions, and refuse to scab, for sure, but even non members can benefit from unions, as they drive wages up across a sector.
If somoene decides to go ahead and work for less than what a goven union thinks appropriate, the union has no right to stop him from doing so. A unions purpose should be to represent the interests of those people listed as being members, but not at the cost of other workers.
: My local british Steel plant once employed thousands, now less than four hundred work there- hundred of engineers and programmers may be needed (now) but thats still less overall than all teh lost welders and steel workers on Teeside.
Then where are the millions who should be milling around jobles according to the above reasoning? Even 'massaged' figures caould not hide millions. How come mass market goods are still selling, if the poor are falling out of the loop? These people are getting jobs.
: Which wouldn't be needed or applied if the people being locked up were actually needed for labour, or employed at all. As such, criminalising the surplus populations life style is just a way to try and control them, either they obey, or they go to prison, either way, teh surplus is disciplined.
Good argument against state-fascism. This isnt done at the behest, implicit or explicit, of business owners (unless all those popular 'ilumunati' conspiracy theories hacve truth in them).
: Personally i've nothing against closed shops, but then, that could be called a free and fair contract between the employer and the Union.
If it actually is agreed openly.