yeah I don't like most fast food breakfast cheeses.  Burger Kings is worse though.

I don't know about scones though, only scones I've had are from Starbucks and its a tougher dough than a fluffy buttermilk biscuit.

I'm pretty sure nobody likes fast food "cheeses."

Conditions 200 years ago are too dissimilar to today for your examples to mean much. Transportation alone (of both people and goods; both are significant here) radically alters the paradigm.

I believe it matters when unions hurt their members. Especially since their members are forced to join and pay dues in most US states. When government threats are used to force people people to join an organization which is used by its leadership for their own interests even at the expense of its members, yeah, I think that matters.

"How about not let the company bankrupt for the 2nd time in a decade?"

How do you propose to avoid that? More government force to stop the demands of a union which government empowered in the first place? It's getting messy! Nobody "let" them go bankrupt.

Unions today exist almost solely for the benefit of union leadership, which has amassed a lot of power as part of our tyrannical government structure. The vast majority of Americans are not unionized and live better than anyone in the history of mankind. Nearly every union I've ever become particularly familiar with saddled employers with pointless, often nonsensical regulations (costs) and facilitated many employees being rather lazy and unproductive without fear of being replaced by people who wanted to work and earn their salaries. I'm not suggesting everyone should be forced to work their hands to the bone or starve, but the laziness I've seen has repeatedly and consistently disgusted me.

Average sick time off at 40 days for whole companies of thousands? People doing literally no work for weeks on end while they wander off, sleep, and let others pick up the slack? In their defense, they often are incapable of doing the work they're getting payed for anyway. While I don't object to unions altogether, when government mandates people join them, government mandates companies hire union, then unions protect lazy bums like these few examples and countless, worse others, it's gone too far and is hurting all of society rather than helping it.

Unions cannot save the unskilled and less productive. How would that work? Unionize everyone in unskilled jobs so as to force more wages than their labor is worth? This prices out entry-level positions and work for the young looking to acquire skills while providing their employers (trainers) with profitable work. It hurts climbing the economic ladder rather than helps.

Conditions 200 years ago are too dissimilar to today for your examples to mean much. 

flint's premise was that monopolies causes bad working conditions. Bad working conditions existed prior to any monopolies.

And yes, conditions are different now. People have figured out that protecting your workers is good hundreds of years ago.

Transportation alone (of both people and goods; both are significant here) radically alters the paradigm.

Are you saying lack of mobility tie workers to a factory? The industrial revolution also saw huge immigration from the countryside to the cities. Mobility is less of an issue than you think.

I believe it matters when unions hurt their members.

I think hurting people in general is bad.

How do you propose to avoid that?

That's a question for the CEO.

Unions today exist almost solely for the benefit of union leadership

Unions are not perfect. If anything, this just shows that people in positions of power can and will abuse their power. There is simply no justification for the CEO turning tail, a point flint has repeated ignored.

As for the rest of your post, yes productivity _should_ be rewarded. So are modern unions going too far in demanding compensation and protecting lazy workers? I don't know, certainly examples exist. It's a yes according to you. Point is, the numbers being thrown around (40 sick days? Is this true? WTF?) is arbitrary. 200 years ago factory workers routinely worked 16-17 hours, 7 days a week, with a few hours on Sundays for bible study. That perception has changed and today we think 8 hour days, 5 days a week is the norm. Maybe our children and grandchildren will even think 20 hour weeks is the norm. It's interesting that you said "I'm not suggesting everyone should be forced to work their hands to the bone or starve". Remember we're talking about unskilled labor here, so I think that's exactly what's going to happen in the absence of labor laws, whether it's monopolies or free competition. I personally think unskilled labor should be compensated with enough disposable income in a way that creates the demand that drives the production of goods in our economy. Do I think unproductive individuals should be given handouts and given an iron rice bowl? No. That begs the question, what do we do with those individuals?

The agricultural revolution turned into the cities the wrkers it needed with the sustenace need to make the wealth we see today.
The industrial evolution naturally followed.

And people are far, far, far, far, far, far, far more mobile than they used to be.

Just to make sure I understand what you're saying: You are saying we have not tried free market approach to labor because workers during the industrial revolution did not have the same mobility as workers today do?

I will respond to this point after you clarify.

What are you suggesting he should have done differently? I believe he acted 
freely and should remain to do so in the future.

Hostess had something like 8 CEOs since they came out of bankruptcy in 1997 (if I remember correctly), so clearly whatever they were doing wrong, none of the CEOs figured it out. If I know what that resolution should be, I would totally apply as the CEO. If I were the CEO, then I believe my duties are to enrich the company, investors, as well as the workers. I'm hired to manage and solve problems that get in the way of those goals, and I know what I _wouldn't_ have done. I would not run away from the company because there are problems, because that's what I'm hired to do. It is my professional ethics to do what I'm hired to do. Freedom is not an excuse to run away from duties.

And if both the CEO and shareholders who hired him made bad decisions, the
free market rectifies this by them going out of business

Sure. I believe this is what happened here. Since you seem to agree, stop putting all the blame only on the union.

Since the more efficient and higher quality company attracts more customers
with their lower prices and higher quality, the quality of life itself increases through
this process. What of these basic free market forces are you objecting to? Is it lost
on you that free markets benefit literally everyone in them?

Overall, market forces are good, it pulls production towards meeting a need. However, I strongly emphasize that your theory is what should occur in an **IDEAL** situation. Real life is a bit more complicated and if this were true, there wouldn't be a need for consumer protection laws in the first place.

Unionization and labor laws are not the same thing. Nobody disagrees with all
labor laws.

I believe the idea of unions is good; it gives unskilled laborers bargaining power that they otherwise wouldn't have individually. That said, it's also clear that there is a fundamental issue. Unions are paid by members, so as far as unions are concerned, the quality of workers is irrelevant, as long as they're paying fees. There ought to be a way to incentivize unionization of productive workers, as a form of quality control.

I'm pointing out that with automobiles, public transportation, and increased population
density, people have exponentially more opportunities available to them in any given location
than they did decades, let alone centuries, ago.

By that logic, even if we were to completely get rid of regulation, it still wouldn't be a free market. Why? Because 100, heck, 1000 years later, who knows what additional mobility, population density, and opportunities people will have? You're essentially saying we will never have true free market today because I can't get from Earth to Mars to work.

Most regulatory agencies exist to protect entrenched business. Their boards are
dominated by industry CEOs, industry money, and government bureaucrats aka industry
pawns. Most of our consumer laws go ridiculously beyond basic common sense essentials
into unnecessary, costly regulations created to raise the cost of entry into business in
order to reduce competition.

We should just get rid of mandatory schooling, since that's obviously a barrier of entry to the workforce.

unions killed the NHL and ruined many of the first weeks of NFL- proof of evilnessy!!

urra!

"You specifically named mobility as a factor of opportunity!

You keep mentioning company stores. What about company stores? Are you arguing that there are no consumer goods alternatives within any reasonable walking distance of a factory? What happened to free-market principles of supply and demand? If a demand for consumer goods arises around a factory, surely some individuals with entrepreneurial spirit would have set up shop around those factories?"

Do you know nothing of the history of worker exploitation? Do you know nothing of the conditions which you argue unions are so responsible for ending? How can you hold such a strong position without this knowledge?

Company stores are the classic example of worker exploitation used in teaching the history of unions and espousing the positive change they caused.

Decades and centuries ago when populations were much more rural, when consumers didn't consume SO MUCH as to make economical the retail store ratio we know today, and transportation (of both goods and people) was a tiny fraction of what it is today, exploitation of people with few or no options was possible in ways it isn't today virtually anywhere.

I'm a bit confused by having to explain this. Are you unaware of the history of worker exploitation? Are you arguing that it's unions preventing it from happening today? Please be more clear, because that's a hilarious notion.

"Well, conditions for the working (wo)man in late 19th century New York still sucked. So what happened?"

Do you really want to get into all of the layers of the political/socioeconomic history of centuries past? Are you going to offer commentary, responses, and make arguments if we do? Or are your questions intended solely to suggest that it's unions preventing such conditions today? Again, please be more clear. Because you'll have to explain how you perceive this to be the case. It'll be a difficult argument to make, given the small minority percentage of the population which unions represent and vastly improved standards of living today. Hell, work hours are considerably less too, and that includes those w/o unions. But if that's the argument you're going for, please do make it. Discussion of the socioeconomic development of NYC more than a hundred years ago, I suspect, would be fruitless.

"No, I am not ignoring what you said. You are attacking regulatory laws through an argument of barrier of entry, are you not? Remember, we are talking about unskilled labor here. What could education provide unskilled laborers that they couldn't otherwise gain through training at the job?"

A lot. Have you ever employed anyone? While schools certainly vary and many fail today (thanks, in no small part, to unions!), one can safely have much higher expectations for a high school graduate than someone who can't read. Even for unskilled labor, the basic socialization and reasoning skills inherent in education hold much value.

Again I beg you to be more clear. It sounds like you're playing the devil's advocate, but to what end? You're suggesting that an unskilled laborer could benefit economically by seeking work as a janitor without first learning to read or getting a basic (high school) education? That's just silly. Such education is accomplished before adulthood anyway. Unless you're advocating child labor and parents abandoning their children, you're not even making any argument that it would benefit people economically to forgo basic education. Also, presumably, there are other accepted purposes to education, such as the development of responsible citizens (don't want cave men voting down civilization) and some nonsense about human potential and happiness.

"Are you disagreeing with those capitalists who hired children as young as 4?"

I've clearly stated that nobody disagrees with all labor laws. You're completely ignoring what I've posted, again. What do these commonly accepted and supported labor laws have to do with unions? Or are you arguing my side now?

I'm all for labor laws preventing child labor. Yet I've stated that unions largely exist today to extort society, protect laziness and unproductivity, and cost society as a whole greatly--the poor most of all.

I've explained the mechanics by which I contend this happens. Do you disagree with anything I actually said? Care to state what and discuss it? Because I certainly didn't argue that laws against child laborers are a problem, and that's the sort of thing you've repeatedly talked about.

"I can only assume you realize that both consumer protection laws and regulatory laws did not exist at one point. If the ideal case you presented worked, consumer protection laws would have never been needed in the first place. "

You're arguing from an all-or-nothing standpoint. I'm not. Of course, many consumer-protection laws are common sense and I have no problem with them. I have never, at any point, in this thread or elsewhere, argued the extreme "ideal case" you're alleging here. Your straw man is for your convenience--I've never advocated anything that could be misinterpreted as some sort of "purist," "ideal" academic nonsense. Of course some laws are pragmatic, common-sense, and there's nothing wrong with them. There's nothing wrong with saying hey, no lead in children's toys. Or no furniture which will catch fire if someone lights a pipe a meter away. So please stop pretending I've advocated some insane position and responding to that. Those are not my positions, and refuting them means nothing to discourse here.

I merely said that many consumer-protection agencies act more often in the interests of big businesses in their respective fields, not in the interests of consumers. I challenge you to find a single regulatory board whose members are not predominantly industry heads. The fact that common-sense laws are desirable does not negate the fact that these corrupt regulatory agencies harm the entirety of society.

"I stress caution against the blind belief that free market is a panacea that will automagically solve all our problems."

I've explained the mechanics by which what I allege occurs occurs. How is my belief blind when I've explained it and you've disagreed with not a word of it? I stress caution against blind belief too. And I've explained myself at length.

"History does not support it, experience does not support it, and last but least, human nature does not support it."

False, false, and false. Educated in Amerika I presume? Indoctrination has been getting worse for decades. The reasons free markets work are precisely because of human nature.

Here's why freedom (aka capitalism) is so awesome for everybody:
With his freedom in tact, man benefits (is rewarded) the most from being productive. Man likes benefiting, so he's more productive! The more productive most men are, the more things are produced, and the cheaper things become! Yay! Freedom, aka capitalism, is not complicated. And you certainly haven't provided any explanation of your vaguely alleged shortcomings here. You just vaguely allege that capitalism, without significant government involvement at every level, is terrible and fails, without explanation or examples (at least, not any I remotely accept as being the fault of freedom ).

And that's just economically! I happen to think freedom is very metal for moral reasons. But that's just me. I'll stick to the math here.

Great depression? Recent recessions? Dangerous (extreme) market fluctuations? All caused (and prolonged) by government, not freedom. Only indoctrinated overlords and sheep with no interest in learning the ugly truth about tyranny and the intellectual laziness of the masses buy into propaganda alleging otherwise.

I have no problem with government protecting people. But the notion that government has to take away significant economic (and other) freedom to protect people is the biggest lie tyrants have ever told mankind. They don't know you. They don't care about you. They can't make better decisions than you. They just want your money. They want more of your money. They'll never get enough; they will ALWAYS argue why it's best for you and everyone if they can just take a few pennies more.

"You do not seem to be against the idea of unionization of productive workers. So tell me, what is your opinion that we as a society, should do to people who fail to achieve the simplest of functions?"

I have no problem with government support being the last refuge of invalids. I don't want them to starve or be homeless or some such horrible fate. My arguments here are focused on the fact that waste--such as that of high taxes and government spending, such as that of unions making whole sectors of the economy less productive and taxing all of society because of this--makes doing this less possible, and makes any such care we provide significantly less.

We're broke. We're waaaay into debt. We're not paying off our debt. We're EXPLODING it. Interest costs are going up every single day. At some point, it will be acknowledged that we're never going to be ABLE (let alone choose to) to pay it down/off. Then we literally will not be able to care for those who cannot care for themselves.

This isn't theoretical, this is inevitable. And it's the least-skilled, who fail to achieve the simplest of functions, who will be hurt the most. It's them I'm arguing we ought to protect by avoiding insolvency. It's them I'm arguing we can provide better lives for by removing the waste that makes our costs of living SO high in the USA. Our poor have larger incomes than 90%+ of the rest of the world, but it's costs like those imposed by government/labor/regulatory board taxes/waste/corruption that make our cost of living SO astronomically high compared to most of the rest of the world. Our poor are harmed most by the cost of living in our nation, not the amount of aid provided to them.

RE: Children

We have laws seperate of labor laws for Children.

A child under 8 is considered to have no sense of right or wrong (in most cases)

A child under 10 cannot be home alone.

A child under 12 cannot watch over other children

A child under 14 cannot watch other children overnight.

A child under 16 must obey curfew

A child under 18 cannot live alone unless a court order is issued.

Heck children as considered wards of their parents or of the State. Even Foster Parents are considered parents. A child typically (not in certain crimes) has their record sealed at age 18.

None of those are labor laws.