This is not just my opinion. Liberals in this thread agree. Read Sweet Lou's post about the multiple CEOs he knows who have become under-paid, under-appreciated teachers.
I hope you do realize that a true libertarian approves of unions. We just do not like mandatory unions. Libertarians are in favor of the voluntary association of people to improve their position in society.
Please show me libertarians who approve of laws that forbid employers to fire or harass or not hire in the first place folks who talk up a union at work and assign substantial fines to those employers who do so. This would sort of operationalize the right to form voluntary unions. Then maybe we can talk about true libertarians approving of unions. Otherwise we are just back to the liberty ("Free to Choose" per the libertarian leaning St Milton) to not take a job at any wage if you are starving-- a type of liberty rejected by virtually everyone except the most extreme market ideologue. Otherwise since libertarians have never been in power anywhere, we are back to the usual dodge that "true" libertarians are so humanitarian and any one who identifies as a libertarian is not really a "true" libertarian when the inhumane results of their proposals are detailed. It sort of reminds me of the theorized perfection of perfect "true" communism or even perhaps a society in which all are perfect Christians (not talking of the Gospel of Attaining Great Wealth/ obeisance to The Market, so common in present America)
I never made the claim. But it is almost never a single owner that hires a CEO, it's almost always a board of people who are stock holders or appointed by the stock holders. But whether I know more or not is not what matters. What matters is that our industry was in better shape before when CEO's were making less. They still made more than workers, but not the disparity we see now. More importantly than it not being the best for the company, but it is not the best for the nation. It baffles me that people want to keep doing the bidding of those billionaires who routinely act against the interest of those that do that bidding.
You are again presuming a perfectly fluid marketplace along with a completely objective standard of measuring worth, such things don't exist outside of theory. Further even presuming those things you have to consider the tradeoffs in regard to what an employer might choose to pay. They might not want to pay for the most qualified candidate if they feel that money there might be spent on other things. Except as someone who believes in capitalism don't you believe that private companies also contribute to society? Oil is very critical to the functioning of a society so for the good of society shouldn't oil companies and their employees not seek to maximize their profits? Again you are essentially advocating socialism, at least partially, by saying that public sector employees What is a conservative's definition of "capitalism" then? I presume you have read Adam Smith so I am not sure why you would consider capitalism to somehow not encourage people to try to maximize their return on investment, be it capital or labor. If it didn't the principle of the Invisible Hand wouldn't work. (Even in theory.) I think vouchers are a different issues than unions, even public sectors unions. While teacher unions are a big part of the current situation other unions like prison guards and etc., are also part of the debate.
There should not be any laws punishing employees for forming unions or any laws punishing employers for refusing to work with unions. Both employers and employees should be free to make their own decisions. I do not want to be part of a union and if the laws you mention exist, which they basically do in some areas, then I might be forced to join a union.
He takes a side sometimes. For example, he hates Jack Kennedy. That comes close to making Sishir a goofus, but I'm willing to ignore it. ;-)-
