Why isn't organized labor viewed as "Free Enterprise" for the worker?

[Tsiyu]

The essence of the "free enterprise system" is that some people get paid a lot of money to oversee the production and sales of goods and services. Other people get paid to invest their cash into these endeavors.

But a good mechanic or chef or doctor or writer or window washer or seamstress also has skills for which he should be adequately compensated. Workers also invest something: their time and effort, and should be able to make some $$$ for that.

Free enterprise. The Fat Cats band together. The Common Folk band together.

Why is this considered "good economic policy" for the former and "evil" for the latter?


Discuss.....

[eallen]

1. Really? I thought that was the essence of feudalism.

"The essence of the 'free enterprise system' is that some people get paid a lot of money to oversee the production and sales of goods and services. Other people get paid to invest their cash into these endeavors."

That's actually a pretty good description of feudalism, or of the ancient agrarian empires of Egypt and Babylonia. Consider the possibility that any description of capitalism that applies equally well these other systems very likely has not captured its essence.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. because of the cynical Golden Rule

That is, he who has the gold makes the rules....

[ret5hd]

3. looked at the price of gold today? it's a rocket! (nt)

[dorktv]

4. I have never understood why unions are considered bad

by anyone.

[Odin2005]

10. It's a result...

... of the rise of Market Fundimentalism in that 80's. To the idiot RW econimists who support this BS, the free market is a holy and sacred end unto itself, and derided Keynsianism, union power, and the welface state as evil sins against the sanctity of the free market. :puke:

[dorktv]

11. I know...it was rhetorical and depressing...not just because of that

reason but also due to the way that regular people view unions.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi Odin2005!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[hughee99]

5. As it happens, I actually know a good mechanic, chef and doctor

they all seem to be "adequately compensated".

[Union Thug]

6. Cuz accomodating the worker is COMMUNIST!!!!!!!! EEEGADS!

This country values one thing above everything else: Capital. Workers don't control the capital, and in fact, they are considered (at best) little more than a necessary evil getting in the way of the accumulation of wealth. As such, we have been relegated to the realm of happy dependents of the mighty.

The most harmful propaganda ever to be swallowed by the working stiff is that there is a new partnership between business interests and labor interests (a line of crap that was used to convince the less thoughtful worker that Unions are no longer necessary). The reality is, obvious to any of us that grew up in working class households, that there truly is a dialectic at work (in spite of the cries of those that would gleefully abandon all of socialist thought) pitting laborer against employer. I think that it is this dialectic that you are speaking to when you say 'common folk band together' - unionism.

At one time, this country had respect for the 'working class hero' but since the Raygun years, the working class have been dealt bad hand after bad hand. The entire culture has shifted towards one that worships CEOs and other assorted robber-barons. When I was a kid we were raised with a healthy hatred of the elite. Now, all of hollywood, marketers, music, etc. sing nothing but orations of devotion to the mighty.

[The Magistrate]

7. For What It Is Worth, Ma'am

Mr. Smith in "Wealth of Nations" speaks at some length in support of the view that labor is a worker's capital, and workers ought to have the same liberty in employing it as a man does in investing money capital. He viewed combination by workers as a natural and proper development.

[mondo joe]

8. Wrong question.

The question is: do the mechanic, chef, doctor window washer or seamstress feel they payoff of being in a bargaining unit is greater than the cost to do so?

In some cases the answer is yes, in some no.

And if those people feel they are adequately compensated or have sufficiently good communications with their employer, there is no need to involve a 3rd party.

[meow2u3]

9. "Free Enterprise" = corporate feudalism

Don't you know any better, you ignoramuses? :sarcasm: