The  Taft-Hartley law regarding labor – management relations goes too far in some areas and not far enough in others.  But should there be any labor laws beyond normal criminal penalties for violence?  But there are laws, and they need some amending.

Right to work: Employees should not be forced to join a union, if they don’t want to be represented. So we need to eliminate the closed shop.  That should also include the current “check off” approach to coerced membership.

Right to represent: A union should represent only its members. No free rides.  If you want a union to process your grievances and negotiate wages for you, join up, pay the dues and get active in your local.  Otherwise, go it alone.  But it’s only fair to the members who are in the union.

Simplify: There should be only one local within the fence.  Whether it’s a physical fence or virtual, there’s a legally defined fence around a plant.  There should be only one local representing all the employees, whether production, maintenance, transportation, etc.

I probably need to send this idea to Congress.
#labor #Taft-Hartley

Take the time to dig into vicious acts, whether by an individual (Think: mass murders) or group (Think: genocide such as the holocaust), and you’ll come to the choices made by either individuals or groups. The genocide in Darfur and the South Sudan are the result of the choices made by the “soldiers” committing the murders.  They have chosen to put their understanding of their religion and its edicts ahead of generosity, compassion and acceptance of the rights of individuals to worship God in their own way.  That’s selfish. Very selfish.

A Corollary: Satan (or any other name you choose to give evil) is the personification of evil and is not real.  Dig deep enough in any situation where you were thwarted in pursuing a good objective and I bet you will find the selfish acts of someone or some group.  We don’t always have the time or “want-to” to dig far enough and consequently assign the barriers to “Evil”.  Is it really necessary to get to the bottom of the issue?  Well, not really.  Just chalk it up to “Someone is being selfish”, look for a path around the barrier and get on with your project.

That said, we need to examine our own wants and desires to evaluate whether we are being selfish or reasonably taking care of ourselves.  Key question being: Am I hurting or depriving someone to gain the goal I seek?  (Contact sports excluded, except for “hits after the whistle” and other unnecessary roughness.)  But I’m probably preaching to the choir here, since I suspect that sociopaths don’t read philosophical treatises.

Charity is a personal responsibility and must never be delegated to any government. That doesn’t mean that individuals who wish to voluntarily combine their contributions via church or other charities can’t do that, just that we should never delegate charity to the government.

It’s plain as can be that government has devolved to self aggrandizement.  Expecting government to distribute charitable contributions or taxes exacted under penalty of law according to real need is quite naive.  No, the squeaking wheel gets the grease.  But first a pretty good chunk sticks to the hands that collect and distribute it 😦  Think about the extent of bureaucracy in our government!