I can't understand what the article summary is getting at. A reposting of a press release? An expression of/.'s parent company's interest in some organisation? Or a "tweet" accidentally posted as a/. article? A side effect of think-aloud sleep-typing?
Who would want to be able to tap on a phone number on a web page and be able to simply call it?
Mass market PDAs/palmtops/whatever have had "call 'phone number in a document using a particular input combination" for at least two decades, starting off by simply emitting DTMF tones.
If you thought (1) Apple was the first to think of this, a specific case for the WWW of "different protocols open different handlers"; (2) this concept is somehow more involved than the design of GSM; then you might want to spend more time reading up on computing history and the history of human invention in general. Or become a lawyer for a patent troll.
An iTouch is an Apple iPod Touch, like a PC is "a compatible descendant of an IBM AT". Sometimes regular Joe citizen-consumers evolve the freedom to develop their own terminology rather than adhering to the Kennel Club Official Brand Standard. Sit, Ubu, sit!
Wait, are you saying that tethering your iPod Touch (or any other TCP/IP client) to some sort of mobile network gateway is, "a case of [those pesky Chinese] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Apple]"?
The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].
No, it's how your brain is going to work. If you have a page full of technology information then it is easy to subconsciously filter out the "mom discovers teeth whitening magic". But if you have a page full of technology information then you have to think twice about the "article on Xyzzy's Security awareness programme."
Desiring targeted ads is just a way of admitting that you are lazy, that you want the person who pays the most money to take your money rather than the one offering the best service, and that you are prepared to do your part in the erosion of privacy for a modicum of convenience. The only relief is that the ad you click on is ultimately paid for by you, the consumer, when you pay for the sponsors' service.
In the UK, the Labour Party was once essentially the voice of the trade union movement. It has now all but abandoned the principles of the movement, while still occasionally pandering to certain large unions which also happen to be substantial Party donors.
So, policy and expenditure will occasionally benefit these unions' members but very little which came out of New Labour was focused at benefiting "the worker" in general.
Now, if the job of the Unions is to protect only its members, perhaps it could be argued that they were right to continue supporting the Party. But if Unions act as particular representatives of a general worker struggle, the dropping of Clause IV should've been a blaring siren and prompt to withdraw support. Indeed, if Blair was going to reduce the traditional support for unions then his policies were ultimately going to hit even those unions which donate to the Party.
I object to unions because I had to miss two weeks of class
"I object to black people because a couple of black guys muttered something across the street a few weeks ago which sounded possibly quite mean."
If you are quite certain that the old lady was senile, and that the strike was because a school wanted to fire (in a way appropriate for senility, i.e. sickness retirement or whatever) this senile old lady, you have identified one stupid decision by one union. This is not enough to generalise in the same way that the awful buttonless iPod Shuffle did not herald the demise of Apple and the whole music player industry.
No, a cartel comprises a group that seeks to control a resource. In this case, labor. Although it's easy to argue that labor is part of the means of production.
I'm sorry, you're just redefining terms to suit your argument. Now you're adding a redefinition of "means of production", the standard definition of which excludes human labour.
Regardless, the substance of the argument is that firms are supposed to use their ownership of the means of production to compete, which is why cartels are restricted. Workers do not play this role.
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is paid the same amount. Yet for some strange reason, it still seems to work just fine.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with what I said. Some Equity members get paid millions per production, others need to take on a second job to survive, yet both sorts of actor are members.
First you say it is not legal only union workers, then you say it can be required to have the employees join the union.
Yes, there is a material difference between requiring someone to be a union member in order to gain employment, and requiring them to join the union after a certain period of time in employment.
And seriously, you're saying that forcing the employees to join the union is a point in favor of freedom of association? You have an interesting definition of freedom.
Yes, allowing every party to assert who he will associate with and for a final compromise to be reached is precisely freedom of association. Recall that freedom of association includes the freedom to choose for others not to associate with you, just as freedom of speech must imply that you get to choose to you listen to.
The alternative is for the government to step in and instruct particular employees that they may not freely negotiate their associations with their employer.
What I am not for: (1) Union shops where people have to be part of a union to work. (2) Workers able to set up a union and have the union automatically represent everyone at the employer. (3) Unions restricting geographically where members can work. (4) Unions boycotting an employer because they have non-union labor. (5) Unions able to say all employees must be part of the union.
At a Federal level (maybe you want to live in one of those "right-to-work" states for more union busting), (1) and (5) are strictly illegal: you can only fire someone after a period of time.
(3) and (4) - are you proposing outlawing or just discouraging these? If outlawing, are you saying that it should be illegal for all workers in some business to simultaneously stop working for the given reasons? I'm sure you are not advocating slavery.
(2) is a separate issue dealing with certain legal privileges that the first voted-for union gets, and is essentially antiunion. I can see why you might want to argue against this law.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
I thought it was obvious from the first two times I ignored that question that I was not going to. It is like prodding someone for what is "actually happening to the Earth's climate": either you're truly not paying attention, in which case here is not the place to start, or you're trolling.
I'm sorry you tried to hire a contractor from the next city over, in return you can't get a plumber or electrician to work for you at all.
To punish private individuals this way seems unnecessarily harsh and hardly likely to win sympathy. I guess it's the alternative they've chosen to enforce local protectionism since there is no law to ensure every worker complies. I tried to compare it with such legally enforced protections, where a country/region essentially says "we want you to favour local labour because it is local" and implements some law to enforce it.
For example, I might save money by hiring a group of illegal immigrants to do some wiring work. But because these immigrants cannot be licensed, I will be punished by some local building regulation at some point, and will have to get things fixed by a locally approved guy.
You don't get the concept of a "union shop." It's a shop where the shop unionized and the standard union contract requires that all workers be members of the union in order to be employed.
No, I don't think a closed shop is strictly legal. What the shop will require is that all workers join the union after some period of time. And the circumstances for ability to fire may depend on US state.
If 26 of them vote to unionize, then all 50 are now required to be dues-paying members of the union, as being a member of the union in good standing is now a requirement to be an employee. [...] I have a feeling you're from a country that wisely decided to neuter union powers early on
You're completely misattributing the blame. The whole majority-vote-implies-single-obligatory-union thing is not inherent to unions but specific US law. Perhaps the law itself needs to be "neutered", but the law is essentially anti-union by restricting workers' choice on unions. As I understand it, it was enacted precisely because direct worker action in an unregulated union environment was having a significant effect on productivity and, with the hiring of union-busters, on the limbs of union leaders.
Look to Europe for an environment which isn't hysterically anti-union while (perhaps partly "because of") not hanging onto these legacy laws.
The Taft–Hartley Act restricts union behaviour, and it is strictly illegal to not hire someone because they are not a member of a union (instead, any firing must take place after a period of time). The Act also allows states to enact laws making contract terms which fire long-term non-union workers illegal, and several states have done this.
IOW, there is quite a lot of restriction to freedom of association from both sides. And each side looks for loopholes, as is always the case when freedom of association is restricted. For example, Equity punishes members who work with non-Equity actors, ensuring non-Equity actors will not do work.
The union restricts it such that a member of one local can not work in an area controlled by another local.
And I was comparing to regulated industries in which people are only licensed to work in a particular region (county, state, nation, whatever).
Well, why not? A union is a form of cartel, after all.
No, a cartel comprises members which own the means of production.
The union has the ability to prohibit it's member from working for you, even if they want to.
The guy has already made an agreement with the union with the aim of benefiting himself and other members of the union. If he does something the other members do not like, why would they want to continue supporting him? If you do something the other members do not like, why would the union want to deal with you?
We have these things called union shops in the US. If you want to work in them, you have to be a member of the union.
No. It it is not even legal to employ only union workers. Of course, it is not legal to force people to work with you either, which is why Equity union members won't work alongside you.
But it is legal for employees to negotiate to require a new employee to join the union after some time... again, freedom of association.
This is regardless of what you may want. So if you want to work for an employer, you have to join the union.
Your implication is absurd. You do not get to work somewhere just because "you want to". The employer has to want you to work there. And one of the things that the employer will care about in deciding whether to employ you is how you will get along with fellow employees. Now, if all your fellow employees have a particular union arrangement (e.g. Equity) and you don't want to play along with them, they won't play along with you. This will harm the company, so the company will ultimately expect that you join the union.
You seem to be frustrated at the ability of employers and employees to each negotiate amongst themselves and between each other, and are describing aspects of this freedom of association as if they are unreasonable. It is very hard to work out exactly what you are for.
Indeed; "choice" - and so many other things oversimplified by geeks - isn't quantifiable as a position on a single line / line segment.
In the union case, one person might argue that choice (to join a different/no union) is reduced in one way or another (despite best efforts esp. in the UK to ban closed shops) if an industry is completely dominated by one union. But a strong, effective union is improving conditions and compensation for workers, increasing their choices in the workplace and during free time.
You have switched between complaining about anti-cartel(?) law, union behaviour (which you are partly implying is only possible because of union law), and union law. I shall address some of the less ambiguous points:
Want wiring done in an area? You have to use local labor.
I'm not sure what you are complaining about here... this is normal for many regulated industries, for a particular definition of "local".
Want to use a specific person? All the labor will be forced to boycott you if he isn't a member of the local.
Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?
Or for the individuals: Want to work at a union shop? You have to join the union.
Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?
Control of the production is irrelevant if it is not controlled by a monopoly.
If it is "irrelevant", why not just give up control entirely to the workers? Perhaps you are exaggerating:-). Every employer depends on his workers' deciding they wish to continue working for him.
What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
In short of course you have the right to assemble and collectively bargain all you want, but your employer shouldn't be forced by law to assist you with that.
Unfortunately, this thread is full of people starting off with the premise "there is a problem with union law" (including single-union laws which are effectively anti-union) and assuming the conclusion "there is a problem with unions". Disney copyright extensions are bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean all businesses which make their money with the help of copyright protections are pure evil.
The owners of most of these companies you seem to disparage are the stockholders, like me for instance,
The formation of a corporation is collective decision-making and bargaining by owners of the means of production. Major shareholders are the rich guys, and even minor shareholders have a certain degree of control of the means of production. These are the powers exerted over the worker which he counters with collective bargaining.
You mean by doing our best at what we do?
It is pretty much only the US middle class which considers the US to be marked by "doing our best at what we do". If what you said were true, you would see precisely the opposite thing happening to what is actually happening to the US middle class.
What you talk about was true a century ago. Today, it's time has passed.
The workers experiencing the worst treatment may no longer be in the US and the UK, and certain Unions may be old enough that they have become inefficient, but the nature of business has not changed.
It is interesting to make threads like this, and to watch moderation bounce very frequently between Flamebait and Insightful, perhaps depending on the political opinions of the particular moderator reading the thread.
Another possibility is just to give your thoughts/opinion/experience, you know?:-)
It makes it impossible for people who do well to get ahead and to remove the people who do a sub-par job.
In what way does it make it "impossible"? I mean, in countries with a history of high unionisation rates such as Germany, is nothing of good quality ever built because the good men are kept down and the bad men are kept on?
It's perfectly possible for bad negotiations between the union and employer to result temporarily in something like you describe, just like it is possible for a businessman to choose his son to take the reins rather than his best performing underling, but there is nothing inevitable about this. And, in both cases, the long-term effect is that the company will not succeed (assuming its success is not guaranteed somehow, e.g.if by government).
people stop thinking for themselves and instead have devotion to their union which even influences how they vote.
And again, you're using a pathological extreme. Of course you show loyalty to those who have an understanding of your plight and your interests in mind, but you must still remain vigilant for corruption or plain bad decision-making. To what individual in any particular grouping of primates formed for whatever reason does this not apply?
For example, if you walk out of the job and strike, you should be able to be fired, no questions asked, you broke your end of the contract.
have the right to either join a different union (which the law often prevents under "sole bargaining agent" provisions)
A law which restricts unions is not a problem with unions (even if there are some unions which abuse it, as certain large corporations abuse laws in their favour)...
Slashdot Mirror
I can't understand what the article summary is getting at. A reposting of a press release? An expression of /.'s parent company's interest in some organisation? Or a "tweet" accidentally posted as a /. article? A side effect of think-aloud sleep-typing?
Let's see, my Psion Series 3a did DTMF dialing of selected numbers in... 1993.
And being engineered to last (wonder how many iPhones will be running with full force in 17 years?), I was just able to test it.
Who would want to be able to tap on a phone number on a web page and be able to simply call it?
Mass market PDAs/palmtops/whatever have had "call 'phone number in a document using a particular input combination" for at least two decades, starting off by simply emitting DTMF tones.
If you thought
(1) Apple was the first to think of this, a specific case for the WWW of "different protocols open different handlers";
(2) this concept is somehow more involved than the design of GSM;
then you might want to spend more time reading up on computing history and the history of human invention in general. Or become a lawyer for a patent troll.
An iTouch is an Apple iPod Touch, like a PC is "a compatible descendant of an IBM AT". Sometimes regular Joe citizen-consumers evolve the freedom to develop their own terminology rather than adhering to the Kennel Club Official Brand Standard. Sit, Ubu, sit!
Wait, are you saying that tethering your iPod Touch (or any other TCP/IP client) to some sort of mobile network gateway is, "a case of [those pesky Chinese] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Apple]"?
The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].
Can we at least all agree that NAT is evil, and destroys one of the nicest features of TCP/IP (and a free Internet): it creates a network of peers?
No, it's how your brain is going to work. If you have a page full of technology information then it is easy to subconsciously filter out the "mom discovers teeth whitening magic". But if you have a page full of technology information then you have to think twice about the "article on Xyzzy's Security awareness programme."
Desiring targeted ads is just a way of admitting that you are lazy, that you want the person who pays the most money to take your money rather than the one offering the best service, and that you are prepared to do your part in the erosion of privacy for a modicum of convenience. The only relief is that the ad you click on is ultimately paid for by you, the consumer, when you pay for the sponsors' service.
Yeah none of this is relevant to his right to record the police.
Nice to see the Party mouthpiece of the champagne hypocracy poking fun at itself... oh, no, it's another Grauniad, "This is what we're better than."
Manny and Meche up a tree...
president of The Management Group, Inc.
And lawyers are employed by managers.
I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
In the UK, the Labour Party was once essentially the voice of the trade union movement. It has now all but abandoned the principles of the movement, while still occasionally pandering to certain large unions which also happen to be substantial Party donors.
So, policy and expenditure will occasionally benefit these unions' members but very little which came out of New Labour was focused at benefiting "the worker" in general.
Now, if the job of the Unions is to protect only its members, perhaps it could be argued that they were right to continue supporting the Party. But if Unions act as particular representatives of a general worker struggle, the dropping of Clause IV should've been a blaring siren and prompt to withdraw support. Indeed, if Blair was going to reduce the traditional support for unions then his policies were ultimately going to hit even those unions which donate to the Party.
Hmm.
I object to unions because I had to miss two weeks of class
"I object to black people because a couple of black guys muttered something across the street a few weeks ago which sounded possibly quite mean."
If you are quite certain that the old lady was senile, and that the strike was because a school wanted to fire (in a way appropriate for senility, i.e. sickness retirement or whatever) this senile old lady, you have identified one stupid decision by one union. This is not enough to generalise in the same way that the awful buttonless iPod Shuffle did not herald the demise of Apple and the whole music player industry.
tl;dr Don't let a confirmation bias develop.
No, a cartel comprises a group that seeks to control a resource. In this case, labor. Although it's easy to argue that labor is part of the means of production.
I'm sorry, you're just redefining terms to suit your argument. Now you're adding a redefinition of "means of production", the standard definition of which excludes human labour.
Regardless, the substance of the argument is that firms are supposed to use their ownership of the means of production to compete, which is why cartels are restricted. Workers do not play this role.
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is paid the same amount. Yet for some strange reason, it still seems to work just fine.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with what I said. Some Equity members get paid millions per production, others need to take on a second job to survive, yet both sorts of actor are members.
First you say it is not legal only union workers, then you say it can be required to have the employees join the union.
Yes, there is a material difference between requiring someone to be a union member in order to gain employment, and requiring them to join the union after a certain period of time in employment.
And seriously, you're saying that forcing the employees to join the union is a point in favor of freedom of association? You have an interesting definition of freedom.
Yes, allowing every party to assert who he will associate with and for a final compromise to be reached is precisely freedom of association. Recall that freedom of association includes the freedom to choose for others not to associate with you, just as freedom of speech must imply that you get to choose to you listen to.
The alternative is for the government to step in and instruct particular employees that they may not freely negotiate their associations with their employer.
What I am not for: (1) Union shops where people have to be part of a union to work. (2) Workers able to set up a union and have the union automatically represent everyone at the employer. (3) Unions restricting geographically where members can work. (4) Unions boycotting an employer because they have non-union labor. (5) Unions able to say all employees must be part of the union.
At a Federal level (maybe you want to live in one of those "right-to-work" states for more union busting), (1) and (5) are strictly illegal: you can only fire someone after a period of time.
(3) and (4) - are you proposing outlawing or just discouraging these? If outlawing, are you saying that it should be illegal for all workers in some business to simultaneously stop working for the given reasons? I'm sure you are not advocating slavery.
(2) is a separate issue dealing with certain legal privileges that the first voted-for union gets, and is essentially antiunion. I can see why you might want to argue against this law.
By the way, will you answer the question of What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
I thought it was obvious from the first two times I ignored that question that I was not going to. It is like prodding someone for what is "actually happening to the Earth's climate": either you're truly not paying attention, in which case here is not the place to start, or you're trolling.
I'm sorry you tried to hire a contractor from the next city over, in return you can't get a plumber or electrician to work for you at all.
To punish private individuals this way seems unnecessarily harsh and hardly likely to win sympathy. I guess it's the alternative they've chosen to enforce local protectionism since there is no law to ensure every worker complies. I tried to compare it with such legally enforced protections, where a country/region essentially says "we want you to favour local labour because it is local" and implements some law to enforce it.
For example, I might save money by hiring a group of illegal immigrants to do some wiring work. But because these immigrants cannot be licensed, I will be punished by some local building regulation at some point, and will have to get things fixed by a locally approved guy.
You don't get the concept of a "union shop." It's a shop where the shop unionized and the standard union contract requires that all workers be members of the union in order to be employed.
No, I don't think a closed shop is strictly legal. What the shop will require is that all workers join the union after some period of time. And the circumstances for ability to fire may depend on US state.
If 26 of them vote to unionize, then all 50 are now required to be dues-paying members of the union, as being a member of the union in good standing is now a requirement to be an employee. [...] I have a feeling you're from a country that wisely decided to neuter union powers early on
You're completely misattributing the blame. The whole majority-vote-implies-single-obligatory-union thing is not inherent to unions but specific US law. Perhaps the law itself needs to be "neutered", but the law is essentially anti-union by restricting workers' choice on unions. As I understand it, it was enacted precisely because direct worker action in an unregulated union environment was having a significant effect on productivity and, with the hiring of union-busters, on the limbs of union leaders.
Look to Europe for an environment which isn't hysterically anti-union while (perhaps partly "because of") not hanging onto these legacy laws.
The Taft–Hartley Act restricts union behaviour, and it is strictly illegal to not hire someone because they are not a member of a union (instead, any firing must take place after a period of time). The Act also allows states to enact laws making contract terms which fire long-term non-union workers illegal, and several states have done this.
IOW, there is quite a lot of restriction to freedom of association from both sides. And each side looks for loopholes, as is always the case when freedom of association is restricted. For example, Equity punishes members who work with non-Equity actors, ensuring non-Equity actors will not do work.
The union restricts it such that a member of one local can not work in an area controlled by another local.
And I was comparing to regulated industries in which people are only licensed to work in a particular region (county, state, nation, whatever).
Well, why not? A union is a form of cartel, after all.
No, a cartel comprises members which own the means of production.
The union has the ability to prohibit it's member from working for you, even if they want to.
The guy has already made an agreement with the union with the aim of benefiting himself and other members of the union. If he does something the other members do not like, why would they want to continue supporting him? If you do something the other members do not like, why would the union want to deal with you?
We have these things called union shops in the US. If you want to work in them, you have to be a member of the union.
No. It it is not even legal to employ only union workers. Of course, it is not legal to force people to work with you either, which is why Equity union members won't work alongside you.
But it is legal for employees to negotiate to require a new employee to join the union after some time... again, freedom of association.
This is regardless of what you may want. So if you want to work for an employer, you have to join the union.
Your implication is absurd. You do not get to work somewhere just because "you want to". The employer has to want you to work there. And one of the things that the employer will care about in deciding whether to employ you is how you will get along with fellow employees. Now, if all your fellow employees have a particular union arrangement (e.g. Equity) and you don't want to play along with them, they won't play along with you. This will harm the company, so the company will ultimately expect that you join the union.
You seem to be frustrated at the ability of employers and employees to each negotiate amongst themselves and between each other, and are describing aspects of this freedom of association as if they are unreasonable. It is very hard to work out exactly what you are for.
Indeed; "choice" - and so many other things oversimplified by geeks - isn't quantifiable as a position on a single line / line segment.
In the union case, one person might argue that choice (to join a different/no union) is reduced in one way or another (despite best efforts esp. in the UK to ban closed shops) if an industry is completely dominated by one union. But a strong, effective union is improving conditions and compensation for workers, increasing their choices in the workplace and during free time.
Life's a compromise.
You have switched between complaining about anti-cartel(?) law, union behaviour (which you are partly implying is only possible because of union law), and union law. I shall address some of the less ambiguous points:
Want wiring done in an area? You have to use local labor.
I'm not sure what you are complaining about here... this is normal for many regulated industries, for a particular definition of "local".
Want to use a specific person? All the labor will be forced to boycott you if he isn't a member of the local.
Well, if you won't deal with them, why should they deal with you?
Or for the individuals: Want to work at a union shop? You have to join the union.
Do you want employers and employees to be forced to accept any particular worker? What exactly are you proposing?
Control of the production is irrelevant if it is not controlled by a monopoly.
If it is "irrelevant", why not just give up control entirely to the workers? Perhaps you are exaggerating :-). Every employer depends on his workers' deciding they wish to continue working for him.
What is "actually happening to the US middle class"?
Seriously?
So employers would routinely accept the loss of 60% of their workforce if it were not for some law?
In short of course you have the right to assemble and collectively bargain all you want, but your employer shouldn't be forced by law to assist you with that.
Unfortunately, this thread is full of people starting off with the premise "there is a problem with union law" (including single-union laws which are effectively anti-union) and assuming the conclusion "there is a problem with unions". Disney copyright extensions are bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean all businesses which make their money with the help of copyright protections are pure evil.
The owners of most of these companies you seem to disparage are the stockholders, like me for instance,
The formation of a corporation is collective decision-making and bargaining by owners of the means of production. Major shareholders are the rich guys, and even minor shareholders have a certain degree of control of the means of production. These are the powers exerted over the worker which he counters with collective bargaining.
You mean by doing our best at what we do?
It is pretty much only the US middle class which considers the US to be marked by "doing our best at what we do". If what you said were true, you would see precisely the opposite thing happening to what is actually happening to the US middle class.
What you talk about was true a century ago. Today, it's time has passed.
The workers experiencing the worst treatment may no longer be in the US and the UK, and certain Unions may be old enough that they have become inefficient, but the nature of business has not changed.
It is interesting to make threads like this, and to watch moderation bounce very frequently between Flamebait and Insightful, perhaps depending on the political opinions of the particular moderator reading the thread.
Another possibility is just to give your thoughts/opinion/experience, you know? :-)
It makes it impossible for people who do well to get ahead and to remove the people who do a sub-par job.
In what way does it make it "impossible"? I mean, in countries with a history of high unionisation rates such as Germany, is nothing of good quality ever built because the good men are kept down and the bad men are kept on?
It's perfectly possible for bad negotiations between the union and employer to result temporarily in something like you describe, just like it is possible for a businessman to choose his son to take the reins rather than his best performing underling, but there is nothing inevitable about this. And, in both cases, the long-term effect is that the company will not succeed (assuming its success is not guaranteed somehow, e.g.if by government).
people stop thinking for themselves and instead have devotion to their union which even influences how they vote.
And again, you're using a pathological extreme. Of course you show loyalty to those who have an understanding of your plight and your interests in mind, but you must still remain vigilant for corruption or plain bad decision-making. To what individual in any particular grouping of primates formed for whatever reason does this not apply?
For example, if you walk out of the job and strike, you should be able to be fired, no questions asked, you broke your end of the contract.
OK, but then everyone else will strike.
have the right to either join a different union (which the law often prevents under "sole bargaining agent" provisions)
A law which restricts unions is not a problem with unions (even if there are some unions which abuse it, as certain large corporations abuse laws in their favour)...