The core leverage of a union is a mafia-style "wouldn't it be a shame if your business burned down?". How are you drawing the line between union and racket? Is there something more nuanced than what you find socially acceptable?
In civilized societies, like the ones across the Atlantic, labor representatives work cooperatively with management in non adversarial manner because children aren't indoctrinated into thinking they're the star of there own Hollywood film
> In civilized societies, like the ones across the Atlantic, labor representatives work cooperatively with management in non adversarial manner because children aren't indoctrinated into thinking they're the star of there own Hollywood film
Yeah right. The unions in Europe have always been more violent and dangerous than the ones in the US. The French labor unions would like a word with you about being civilized (they're anything but).
And which societies would those be? The forever dictatorships in Eastern Europe? The regressive monarchies all over Western Europe? Look up how many constitutions the French have had, because they can't get anything right. Most of Europe was a backwards, primitive disaster until the last 40-50 years. Mass genocide, tens of millions butchered in wars, millions cast into slavery in North and South America, monarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Communism, Socialism, Colonialism. Oh yes, those glorious enlightened Europeans, we have so much to learn from their ... wisdom. Europe largely are constitutional and democratic infants compared to the US, crawling from behind by more than a century. It'll take a miracle for Europe to not be back to killing itself before another few decades is up. The sole reason they didn't spend the post WW2 era slaughtering each other is thanks to the US occupation of Europe, which prevented war with Russia and largely kept the major powers from being allowed to attack other weaker nations.
You're likely to be flagged and have a dead comment soon, but I want to let you know I appreciate this harsh (but honest) take. I find it endlessly fascinating how much "young buck" brow-beating the US gets from Europe (and so too their respective citizens and representatives), in both political/media rhetoric and in interpersonal fora like this. As a proud and naturalized US Citizen myself, thanks for standing up for me.
US history before the last 50 years was rather a shitshow with regards to human rights, uprisings, and state violence itself! So let's not pretend it's any more civlizied than the countries that its founders came from.
In many ways it ended up less civilized than its northern neighbor, which seems to fight rather fewer wars of aggression.
Canada has no need to fight wars of aggression. It has only one neighbor, the united states, a nation with which it essentially shares most culture and language (Canadian English and American English is almost 100% identical). It never will need to fight a war because the United States will never let anyone near Canada.
This is like claiming the isle of mann never fought a war while ignorning it's protectorate status with the UK.
For all intents and purposes, Canada is a protectorate of the united states, we just don't call it that to avoid diplomatic incident.
That may all be the case, but from my point of view this is swinging back in strange ways. All those religious fundamentalism, the 'evangelicals' or however the crazies want to be addressed comes over here, to breed back into more or less laizistic societies. IMO they can go back to where they came from, the same applies to islamists and other orthodoxies.
Your world view of american exceptionalism. Let's have a look at that, exceptional robber barony, bullying, conning and cunning, sold by such sweet cheer leeding and really empowering the countless masses into mindless consumerism until the urgent need to numb it down, be it by psycho pills, weed, opiates, whatever. Food stamps, fuck yeah!
Personally I think that big bully needs to be gagged with petrodollars, and having beaten its teeth out so sensibly with a baseball bat, that it shits them out at the lower end. And then smashed its skull to pulp so that it follows the way of the teeth, fashioned into fantastically flavourful fish fodder.
Because any exception needs to be caught, and treated accordingly. Error correction, so to speak. Otherwise crash.
For reasons of transtemporal hygienics true hyperbolic excess is disallowed. Deal with it.
Cordially condoned by the clandestine committee for cognitive corruption.
> The sole reason they didn't spend the post WW2 era slaughtering each other is thanks to the US occupation of Europe, which prevented war with Russia and largely kept the major powers from being allowed to attack other weaker nations.
That's a pretty strong take, do you have any evidence for said take?
The time between the founding of the eu and now is the longest Europe has ever been without two major powers at war. Europe was basically the middle east version 0.5.
I'm assuming you caught the bit about "millions cast into slavery in North and South America". A legacy which still lives on.
Much of the stability of North America is built on that slavery (and the 100-million or so lives it cost), genocide of the original inhabitants (another mass killing of as many as 100 million), and of course, the protective moat of thousands of miles of ocean east and west.
Europe's own most stable polities are also shielded by water (Britain) and/or terrain (Scandinavia).
Yes, but they are in a forced cooperation. Especially in the short term. Labor laws have extra protection for union leaders, and unions obviously can't strike forever, and the employer can't let go of too many people to decrease labor expenses (otherwise they can't operate the firm). Both parties have tools to try to assert their interests, but those are all blunt instruments that only have a certain useful range.
The core leverage of a union is a mafia-style "wouldn't it be a shame if your business burned down?". How are you drawing the line between union and racket? Is there something more nuanced than what you find socially acceptable?