Sir;..I was once a union steward on a job at General Motors in Lansing... One day, the governor, John Engler and a whole lot of impotent people came to have some sort of ceremony in regard to getting the job up and out of the ground with a lot of politics played to a good conclusion... Great banners were put up and nearly as quickly torn down by a vicious winter wind; and as soon as possible the crowd departed some where for drinks and eats out of the weather... The thing is that I threw away a lot of credibility with my men all but begging them to not go and show their bare butts to the governor... And it was not that I had any love of the guy...How could we??? It was obvious that he hated us, so we hated him...My respect was not for him, but for the electors of this state... And yet, I must protest that justice is the object of the union just as it is the object of the state and the whole nation... Some times union people get more than is just ...But there is nothing just about a group of any sort having to band together to have justice when that is why we have our whole government, and what we pay taxes for... Justice is our goal, the goal of this nation, and our right along with tranquility, general welfare, and a more perfect union.... Having unions for every possible purpose is not superior to the government fulfilling the promise it has made to the whole people... Do you see what has come of this country putting the desires of business and finance above the needs of the people??? We have been divided against ourselves on a thousand lines; but the problems we face are not the problems of our associations or unions... They are the problems of a people held captive by their government so they can be used, exploited, and some time killed by capital... I am not contented that there is a special place in hell for all those traitors in business suits... I wish they would all just go, so we can have the country promised to us in the constitution...Thanks...Sweeney

Someone sent me an article urging me to support 'free choice' for workers in union representation elections.
Herewith my modest proposal in reply:
Should workers rely on the benevolence of their bosses to protect them and advance their interests?
Or should they have organizations -- whether unions or government agencies -- whose sole purpose
is to keep them safe and see that they get their fair share of the wealth they produce?
The record of private employers' concern for their workers' welfare is not good.
Throughout history -- and right now -- businesses and bosses have knowingly exposed
workers to deadly dangers without informing them or giving them any choice. Thousands
of workers and retirees from chemical plants, mines and many other industries are suffering slow
and agonizing death as a result of such exposure. Whenever such abuses are exposed (as they
are almost every day) business's inevitable response has been to deny, to lie, to use batteries of
lawyers to obfuscate the issue, even in exceptional cases to take extreme action up to and
including murder to conceal and perpetuate their utter indifference to anything except enhancing their profits.
Are some unions crooked? Sure. Are some union leaders as venal and corruptible as
the corporate bosses? Sure. Power corrupts, remember? So how can we best ensure
that the powerless -- the ordinary worker who wants only to support himself and his family in
reasonable safety -- has the best chance of doing so? Should he place his trust in
the corporate bosses? If not, then to whom and how?
I have a suggestion. Forget the unions and the ballots and the cards and all the other
paraphernalia. Instead let us require by law that at least 50% of every corporation's board of
directors be composed of workers freely chosen by secret ballot. (Elections
for those posts should be held anew every year to ensure that the representatives do
not themselves become vested interests.) This requirement should be retroactive;
existing corporations should be given up to ten years to come into compliance. Any
corporation that fails to comply shall have its corporate charter revoked. The law should
also make provision for unincorporated private businesses. In short, after a reasonable
period of time every profit-making institution shall be run by a partnership -- however
uncomfortable -- between its owners (or their hirelings, the executives) and those who do the work.
In that way two of the 'stakeholders' will be able to protect their interests.
As to the third 'stakeholder' -- the customer or client whom the business is supposed to serve --
I can think of only one way in which to protect him from possible harm: abolish by law all
'company secrets'. No more coverups of information such as the link between tobacco and
cancer or the fact that nicotine is addictive (both well known to producers for more than half
a century but consistently denied). No more suppression of studies showing that some product
or some ingredient is hazardous to health or safety.
Will this mean interfering with private industries' power to control their own affairs?
Yup.
Will it mean more government regulation and control, with all the inevitable interference
with private businesses that entails?
Yup.
Would that be a worthwhile tradeoff?
Yup.
Would it be -- shudder -- 'socialism'?
Nope.
Not quite. Private businesses would still be privately run. But there would be nannies --
both from government and from among the workers -- watching the bosses in their playpens to
ensure they didn't hurt anyone too much.
If the nannies do their jobs well, unions will probably wither away and disappear.
That should make the bosses happy, no? :-)

Dear Jim, Iwas an 8yr Senior Ass-coiate of DELL Computer, now DELL, Inc. Wanna investigate a union bustin' union hating, scared-to-death workers would get it together past their lies Company? Try DELL, Inc. I don't care if they do come after me for telling the truth. Start in Tennesse, Lebanon and Nashville. Look at the false Tax Records for starters.