Right to Work might be the better solution.

If only you could stop paying the property taxes to support the crappy schools you wont be using when you make such a decision.

Mew

The “protection” argument simply does not apply to either the unskilled labor unions nor the government-bureaucrat unions.

The unskilled labor unions were set up by the leaders of the anarchist movement in Chicago in the 1800s as a way to gain muscle for physical intimidation and to pool votes for political intimidation.

Outside of the “government trade unions”, i.e. cops, firefighters, EMTs, all other government employee unions exist for similar reasons to the unskilled labor unions.

“Protection” is at best a side-effect.

Mew

It means the nation’s means of goods and services production is privately owned. It doesn’t mean people are greedy.

This private ownership confers upon the owners a responsibility to operate the labor marketplace fairly which, of course, means more pay for more work. If they don’t give more pay for more work, they open the doors for people like Obama to come in and exploit the unfairness.

Like Mr. Horowitz wrote, this is the cornerstone of the free-market system: pay that is comprehensive of the work done. People who do more work have to get more pay. That’s the mechanism by which the free-market system creates higher achievement. That’s what makes the free-market system superior to publicly-, or “government”-, owned systems.

The free-market system must be allowed to reward superior work performance because that’s why people come to American: so they can work hard and be rewarded appropriately.

This is a complex issue because lots of people want to be rewarded even when they don’t work hard and, unfortunately, this is an almost immediate result of union protection: worker abuse.

The free-market system is simple: higher pay for better work. It’s human beings who make it complex. Workers try to get higher pay even when they don’t do better work, and company owners–the hallowed “job creators”–often do not provide higher pay for better work; they expect people to do extra work for free (which is the situation at my employer).

It’s this simple: people work for money. People who do more work get more money, and people who do less work get less money. Any variation from that is a violation of and an abuse of the free-market system.

But–again–the free-market system isn’t about greed. It simply means that the nation’s goods and services production are held by private, and not public (“government”), owners. This confers upon the private owners a responsibility to fairly distribute the results of the nation’s productivity (profits). If they don’t, they create an imbalance: unhappy workers. This opens the door for people like Obama, who don’t necessarily want to rectify the situation, but who certainly see an opportunity to exploit dissatisfied people by making all kinds of promises to them about “wealth redistribution”–promises they don’t intend to keep–so they can assume power and control.

This has happened many times throughout history. Those who promise “wealth redistribution,” like Obama, have no intention of fairly redistributing wealth. It’s a lie. But it’s worked many times as a means for despots to basically “steal” ownership of a nation, and it comes from private owners who aren’t smart enough to simply offer pay equal to the work done.

My immediate is about to do it to me today; I can see it coming. He’s going to expect me to put in a 20-hour day without a nickel of extra pay. This isn’t exactly what Horowitz is talking about, but it’s part of the same argument. If I work harder and do better work, I should get extra pay. That’s the free-market system’s fundamental rule and, as Horowitz asks, why would anybody not want to observe it?