About 'goose' killers I
After reading Thomas Sowell's column “Unions killing the goose” (Nov. 25 and TribLIVE.com), I have to comment on the biased opinion that all unions are bad for business.
The column is wrong in saying high wages and union labor rules were at fault in the Twinkie bankruptcy. The demand for “bad carbs” such as Ho Hos and other sugary, high-fat foods has declined. When Twinkies' makers failed to make their treats more healthful, their sales plummeted.
The state liquor stores yield a high profit for the taxpayers and Pennsylvania and they are unionized.
Unions serve a purpose — to set the standard for fair wages and benefits for everyone. The 40-hour work week and paid vacations many enjoy come from union bargaining.
Now, many are forced to work two jobs to make ends meet. Corporations like Wal-Mart do not share their profits with their employees and now force them to work holidays with no added benefits.
Just like a strong military is needed to defend our freedom, unions are a safety net for the workers and as they vanish, so does the working class.
Human greed makes it essential that we have protection against unfair labor practices and low wages. With the excess of illegal immigrants who will take jobs at low pay, wealthy CEOs have it in the bag.
And so I ask, what do the Trib and many conservatives have against the working class getting a fair shake?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.