>> Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me.
I simply disagree that the government should be involved. If it turns out a factory is dangerous then no one will want to work in it and if they do? Well if they do want to work in dangerous conditions, let them.
The point is, most people wont work in awful conditions and its in the employers best interest not to hurt its employees anyways. In the 1920's when all this hoopla started because the workers rebelled and both the workers and employers were literally shooting at one another (this was also when communism was entering the scene).
Relating it back to this article, its a citizens duty to enact (or attempt to enact) change into the government because the government is there for its populous. A company is there for its own bottom line. The company wasn't forced upon you and you shouldn't force yourself upon it, unless it does so. AKA the company store was bad and forced something unreasonable upon you, for that a union is great and should be formed. In either case unions supported by government intervention are something a tad more draconian in my mind, by denaturing a company and making it about its employees rather than about its product. Leading to issues such as car manufacturers.
This is your argument in a nutshell: Product>Employee.
Your argument is fundamentally inhuman. The ultimate point of a product is not the product, it is the benefit to mankind. If you sacrifice people for the product, you are imbuing a product as god. That's completely the opposite of reality, in which products are the "product" of humans (and if we're continuing with deities as a part of this analogy, humans would therefore be divine, not products).
A company does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within many larger societal themes. When a company chooses to pursue profit while negatively impacting the aggregate economy, it is the point of regulation to punish such behavior. Without regulation, the whole world gets torn asunder, as it nearly has been many times in recent history.
TL;DR: The correct answer, IMHO, is People>Product. To think otherwise is to err morally.
>> This is your argument in a nutshell: Product > Employee.
That's an incorrect statement.
I think its an individual > everyone else (an example would be you care for your family more than your neighbor). A company is owned by someone, if its the stock holders then its a group, if its a private enterprise than its an individual. In either case, the employees want to benefit and so does the employer and its not "morally" correct to abuse either one. Rather, its "moral" to allow each employee to decide what he is willing to work for and an employer what he is willing to pay. My initial rejection of unions were based on the idea that the government came in and has a tendency to side with the unions (likely to garner more votes).
For your other point: The government can be as bad or worse to the economy than any company. If that's your argument you'd have to ignore a significant portion of history where inappropriate regulation has damaged humanity. The point is, the only "moral" regulation is one that robs no one.
>> Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me.
I simply disagree that the government should be involved. If it turns out a factory is dangerous then no one will want to work in it and if they do? Well if they do want to work in dangerous conditions, let them.
The point is, most people wont work in awful conditions and its in the employers best interest not to hurt its employees anyways. In the 1920's when all this hoopla started because the workers rebelled and both the workers and employers were literally shooting at one another (this was also when communism was entering the scene).
Relating it back to this article, its a citizens duty to enact (or attempt to enact) change into the government because the government is there for its populous. A company is there for its own bottom line. The company wasn't forced upon you and you shouldn't force yourself upon it, unless it does so. AKA the company store was bad and forced something unreasonable upon you, for that a union is great and should be formed. In either case unions supported by government intervention are something a tad more draconian in my mind, by denaturing a company and making it about its employees rather than about its product. Leading to issues such as car manufacturers.