http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/details-of-romneys-jobs-plan-leaked/

“I will make business taxes competitive with other nations, eliminate burdensome regulations and bureaucracy, and support America’s workers instead of its union bosses,” Romney writes in Friday’s speech.  

I will use Romney's quote as a starting point above.  What I see implied in Romney's quote is that Romney (a politician) and corporations care more about workers than union bosses.  I would ask that to be true.  Just trust the economy in the hands of Mitt Romney (or plug another politician in there) and corporations, remove any form of power from union bosses (and I guess unions) and BLAMMO you will end up having the lives of workers improved multi-fold.  

Is this true?  Do politicians like Mitt Romney and corporations care about workers more than union bosses?

what makes you think either care at all about them. union bosses, like most people in power, are just in it to feed their ego and visions of their own power. like the CAW (canadian auto workers union) president recently dictating that two of our political parties should merge.

Power corrupts.

That is the case for corporations, big businesses, and big unions too. None are exempt.

You need competition between labor and business. If it tips in favor of business too much, then abuses can become present. If labor gets too big, the businesses become grossly inefficient and hemorrhage money, thus leading to far fewer jobs.

Right now, the scales are tipped in favor of big unions like the UAW and NEA in America. Both have become far too large, and exert significant influence on politicians and their institutions they are supposed to work for, which has lead to their downfall. Education is horrible in America partially because teachers are overpaid and under-performing because schools cannot fire good teachers (the average rate of turnover due to firing in America is 10%. For NEA-backed schools, its 0.5%).


Power should not be removed from unions - some do exist for good reasons. However, their power should only be applicable to their trade and their business, and nothing more. They exert massive political influence which coerces people to join unions and pay dues, regardless if they want to. This is no better than corporations who influence regulations that favor their business while discouraging competitors. Both are equally wrong. Instead, there should be no favoritism.

If A boss really cared about is worker, he would decreased is own salary before, Firing Is work force, But I never seen That, Well Once,

But the care more about them then the other, money do that, You never had enough or that.

we'll never know

This user's post has been removed.

That's a general symptom of our donations system overall rather than unions in particular. Nobody should have influence outside of what they actually do or contribute to the economy.

Fundamental campaign finance reform would fix these abuses on all ends of the equation. A very slim tax on corporations, NGOs, Unions, and the general populace to fund equal-voice campaigns (which wouldn't be especially burdensome on everyone, and would probably save most of the bigger donors in wasteful "rent-seeking" expenditures that they spend in the free system), and campaigns that would be less intrusive to our daily lives

Depends on what you consider workers... Union Bosses don't care about all workers. They care about THEIR workers.

Quick example, I worked for GM for a few months after the buyouts as a temporary worker for the UAW. Largely to protect the local union workers jobs so that people with more seniority from closed plants couldn't step in in and force those union workers with less then 10 years to be laid off.

The local union greatly supported this because they were looking out for their guys.  A union boss would be all for reducing the lives of plenty of other workers and cause more unemployment, just as long as the small group of people he's looking after get a little bump in the check.

From working there too i picked up on a few things. Unions and Companies can often get to the point of where they HATE each other... to the point of where both sides can be getting away with things it damn well knows it shouldn't... and yet they won't "hostage" trade with each other because neither side wants to admit they gave something up.

So more and more "hostages" get taken from each side, and there isn't enough "population" in effectiveness to get things done.


It's not really just a union problem, but yeah, a lot of Union Bosses do care less about their employees and more about "winning" and not every giving anything back and being reelected.

Mitt's comment was, in short, defag union bosses and trust myself and business to end up looking after the best interests of everyone, which is the point of what I had said.  Aren't union bosses elected by their members?

Anyhow, if power and size corrupts, then what hope is there?  What had happened the past decade is banks merged.  There are now less and less banks than before.  They get "too big to fail" and then push for handouts.  As it is, as population gets larger, the entities that serve the population also get larger.  Throw in globalization, and you get very large scale.  So, what is the choice then?  If there is showing a tendency for executives wanting to merge and reduce numbers out there, then how can things NOT get larger?  Technology is also leading to scaling also, where a small shop has less and less of a chance of making it.  Walmarts take over retail.

So, what is to prevent a dooming of society that has all its organizations all corrupt?

Your "class warfare" speak was seen in Mitt's speech, and the rhetoric abounds all over.  Union bosses = evil.  Corporations = good.  Poor = lazy and user of drugs.  Rich = the wealth producers and hard workers who you can't "punish" or they will stop hiring people.  It is rhetoric going on, and not just what you said.  Class warfare goes beyond words you speak, FAR beyond it.  It happens when one class, usually the under class, feels that it is being ripped off and is denied the basics of life, like food.  To equate discussing such issues and rhetoric as "class warfare" is to say "Let's all remain blind to the issues".  Want to see real class warfare?  How about blood in the streets?  See what is discussed here: