I think we're talking past each other. From your perspective, why are union issues linked to rights?

From my perspective, value drives decision-making. How one makes a valuation of a particular decision is based on whether one approaches a deal or issue with a short-term or long-term view in mind (expense vs investment). If one views a particular transaction from the short-term goal of "how much money am I going to make in the next year", one can come to a very different conclusion than if one evaluates the same transaction based on a long-term "how can I maximize the life-long return of this relationship". In the case of a union boss, they are frequently concerned with the short-term, rather than the long-term view. Thus they advocate higher wages, more benefits, etc., while ignoring the fact that those higher wages et al cause higher product costs, less product consumption, and drive consumers to competitors' brands. In the short term, the wages go up, the union dues go up, and the union boss collects a windfall, but in the long term, the company automates (laying off workers), and in some cases (see United Airlines), goes into bankruptcy and voids the contracts altogether.

And let me be very clear: I do not support ANY governmental subsidization or other enabling behavior which supports unionization.

Not sure if that helped at all.

Not sure I get your answer yet. So, if there was a union that respected individual rights, do you say that in the long term government must subsidize it?

It seems to me that if a union kept violating individual rights, it would soon cease to be.
That is unless the force of government got involved and it violated individual rights in favor of the union. (The way things happen today.)

I should probably clarify: they seek their short-term self-interest. In the long-term, unionization leads to wage stagnation, counter-productivity (not just loss of productivity), loss of flexibility to market changes, and it can't be continued without government subsidization (see Chicago) or it collapses under its own weight. I don't see it as a rights issue one way or the other.

Sounds like a self-interested person is bad.
Then, is a self-interested person who respects individual rights bad?
Is an other-interested person who violates individual rights good?
Is left right?

The problem is that of self-interest. When you become the leader of a union (a union boss), you have no other job than to unionize more people so your personal paycheck gets bigger. It's a snowball effect of the kind that quickly degenerates into the mentality of the gangster or thug. And when they get a staff to "help" them, you only increase the angular velocity of the snowball.

I am against unionization. Period. If there is a problem with wages or conditions, the best solution is competition from an open and non-government-controlled market. Adam Smith pointed this out centuries ago.

Labor contracts are a form of collusion between labor and management against the consumer. Walmart is doing the right thing.

True

The Tea Party may need to rock the Republican boat, but as Robbie says below, R's are unlikely to do so.

The rights of an employee are only as good as the company's behind them.

Not all unions are the same, the bad ones do deserve the bad press As for Walmart, that is a different subject.

You have a point. Maybe unions violating individual rights is just in their nature. Or maybe they have discovered over and over that it is an effective and low risk means to their ends.

I should add to my experience on this matter, the Union who opposed Walmart was very much in favor of unionizing illegal aliens throughout Arizona. So much for Unions and individual rights. The time for unions, nothing more than a collection of lawyers working to find ways to get paid, is well past. As a former 3x small business owner I can honestly say that providing benefits and treating your people with respect is the single best way to retain quality personnel (which keeps your business growing).

Good for you.

Jan

I don't believe many here would complain about those unions that were shown to actually respect individual rights.

The response by Wal-Mart was classic. The article is a perfect example of hating success for being successful.

If ever, right now the Republicans need to rock the boat. In fact, maybe they need to tip it over!!!

I do find it ironic when the union parasites, whining about not having jobs, continuously buy cheap Chinese junk at Walmart.

A bit of Info:

When my IT consulting company was the contractual IT administration for the UFCW in Phoenix the union had office space and staff dedicated to harassing Walmart. Reason: Walmart won't unionize.