![Censorship Censorship](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/censorship_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Canadian Telco Admits to Blocking Union's Website 689
Nogami_Saeko writes "Canadian telephone company and ISP "Telus" has admitted that they are blocking all attempts to access a website set up by the employee's union (who is currently "on-strike" or "locked-out", depending on your point of view). Currently no customers of the Telco's ADSL service (or any other ADSL service provider who leases lines) can access the union's webpage. Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?"
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
They should simply.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should simply.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You want control? Sure, you've got it. But you get responsibility (liability), too...
Re:They should simply.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They should simply.. (Score:5, Informative)
To access a news group you have to connecet to a server that hosts the group.
NNTP allows servers to request only the parts of the USENET hierarchy that they wish to carry.
Hence the content of a news article is stored on the server you connect to.
The content of a web page is not stored on the ISP's servers, caching asside, and as such the ISP is only acting as a carrier not as a host.
Re:They should simply.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They should simply.. (Score:3, Interesting)
A common carrier (Score:5, Informative)
An early example of a common carrier case would be where a railroad refused to carry wheat for farmers. It would only carry wheat for grain companies. The court declared that the railway, being a common carrier, must carry wheat for the farmers. Before that, the grain companies could dictate the price of grain to the farmers. The concept of 'common carrier' can be very powerful.
'Common carrier' has been extended to the telephone companies. That means that the telco cannot refuse you phone service if it is available in your area.
The designation was not sought by the common carriers. It was thrust on them by legislation and common law. The fact that ISPs find it useful is an just lucky for them. In any event, they may not have the choice of whether they are or are not common carriers.
A modest proposal. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, the requirement to carry all comers also confers a privilege - a lack of responsibility for refusing to carry some loads. (The responsibility is borne by the government because it forced them to accept the traffic.) An ISP may find that carrying the union's propaganda is less of a burden than being responsible for kiddie porn.
The union should file a suit against the ISP - not for refusing to carry its traffic, but for recovery for all the SPAM it and its members recieved through their connections, using the fact that the ISP refused to carry the union website traffic as proof that they are NOT a common carrier, and thus bear responsibility for content.
IMHO that will turn the ISP around in very short order.
If they don't turn it back on within a few hours of receiving notice of the suit, file another for damage to their kids' mental health due to viewing kiddie porn carried over the ISP's lines. B-)
Re:Not common carrier in US (Score:3, Informative)
In the US, DSL consists of two distinct entities. At the bottom is common carriage, provided to an ISP by a telephone company under FCC tariff. When you buy Verizon Online DSL, you're buying from the FCC, but under current FCC rules, Verizon Online, a separate accounting entity, pays your state's Verizon Telephone Company a price for raw DSL common carriage. This create an opportunity for other ISPs to provide the same ISP service,
Re:Not common carrier in US (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not common carrier in US (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of people thought that lawsuit was frivolous; I think that it served an important purpose. Wal-Mart prides itself on its "family values" (while ironically keeping many families firmly in the category of the "working poor"). The suit reminds them that there are consequences for taking on the role of moral arbiter, and they may get more trouble than they bargained for.
Of course, if anyone can afford to take the hit, it's the biggest retailer in the world.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Not trolling, just don't know. I suspect this is part of the fear of making Internet access public in the US as well - if government regulates, "think of the children!" takes over and everybody loses. A few other posters have already mentioned that voting with dollars makes more sense, provided you have alternatives.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting these guys run their businesses this way is tantamount to letting the guys who run the toll roads just not allow vans from their competing companies run on their roads. We'd never allow this on other critical infrastructure, why the heck should we allow it on the internet, THE crictical infrastructure for the 21st century.
TW
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless it is more profitable to do so.
For example, cell providers could simply provide a data service instead of application service. $N for x MB of data (and maybe $M for y MB of real-time data), and the rest is up to you. That would produce a market in which many companies are trying to figure out how to build and sell the applications that consume the
Re:No. (Score:2, Interesting)
In Australia at the moment, Telstra is one of the biggest ISPs and is 51% owned by the government. Most other retails resell Testra products or use Telstra datapipes in one way or another.
Imagine if Telstra, under the direction of the Government, were told to stop access to any sites of opposition parties, unions who didn't agree with their stance, etc.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I heard, people paid for use of their property, and weren't party to an agreement of "we'll fuck around with the content you access to our heart's content if it might have an impact on our stock prices". You might even say the expectation was somewhat the opposite.
But right, all that "capitalism is about the enlightened freedom of choice" nonsense only applies to the people who actually own the most property, no?
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it their network? (Score:2, Insightful)
The bottom line here is, if a consumer does not like the actions that a corporation is taking, then they can vote with their money by using a competing service.
When the government is behind censorship that is different - if something is publicly funded then it should publicly available (generally speaking and w
Re:Is it their network? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is it their network? (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have a right to broadband, just because you can't get what you want, doesn't mean Comcast should be forced to give it to you.
Re:Is it their network? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is it their network? (Score:3, Insightful)
A monopoly doesn't need to be government sponsored. Think Microsoft, or better yet Standard Oil.
No, it's not a right, but broadband is a service which the government considers a strategic move for a healthy economy, thus an 'inconsiderate' monopoly can be considered to be a
Re:Is it their network? (Score:3, Informative)
The Canadian government has a mandate to make broadband available to all Canadians. The ISP's have been slowly being forced to expand into areas they wouldn't normally. (IE: Low population centres)
At least in Ontario, almost every small town has a couple of broadband choices. I'm in a town of 1400 people, and I have 4 choices. 2 cable, 2 dsl.
They basically say: Hey, you want to expand your business in this are? OK, well you're going to have to cover th
Re:Is it their network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it their network? (Score:2, Interesting)
Aaah yes. The American way. Now most people would just ask for a refund for what they paid for the compromised service. But no, in America you sue the bastard for whatever you can get. It might not be right, but it's legal, so they'll do it. It's the American dream.
Re:Is it their network? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lastly it is highly likely they are breaking contracts with the people who lease their lines to provide their own interenet service.
Re:Is it their network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Did the contract these people agreed to in order to get service mention "oh by the way, we censor websites that we don't like?
Your "vote with your wallet" crap requires an informed marketplace, which is anathema to today's megacorporations which thrive on lies and greed. This is one of the reasons I pay extra to not get a yearly contract for my ISP: I can't trust them to not pull shit on me with their vaguely worded "bandwidth limits" which they can't just tell me what they are, and other trash like that.
How very super capitalist of you... (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you expect the phone company to block your home phone from being able to call up a competing phone company to discuss changing service? Essentially, this is the kind of thing that is going on via blocking
Re:Is it their network? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it their network? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it their network? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line here is, if a consumer does not like the actions that a corporation is taking, then they can vote with their money by using a competing service.
Great idea, in fact I think I'll string up some cable lines and start a competing service so others can... wait what do you mean I can't? The government has granted them a monopoly on the use of those poles, underground conduits, and publicly owned right of ways to prevent there from being too many lines up? Well now. That's different isn't it? Since they are a government sponsored monopoly I guess the free market can't effectively decide now can it?
Please in future actually to make sure that when you are rabidly espousing unfettered free market economics that situation you are talking about is a free market, not a government sponsored monopoly. They don't have to compete thanks to the government, thus they have to work in the public interest as much as needed. Censoring their competitors or unions is obviously not in the public interest.
Re:There's no monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
I think *you* need to understand the difference between a government sponsored monopoly and a government regulated industry. Telcoms is the latter in Canada.
monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service
I don't know about where you live, but everywhere in both the U.S. and Canada that I have lived there is only one set of cable lines, phone lines, and power lines on the roadside poles and they are owned by the respective local monopoly. If there is only o
Their contract w/ their customers "own"ing (Score:5, Insightful)
"Own"ing assets does not give you absolute power over what you do with them.
Actually it was a claim by the company (Score:3, Informative)
And for what it is worth, I went and looked at the pictures on the union site, and there are no pictures of anyone crossing a picket line. The closest to that is simply a couple of photos of two managers at one location lounging outside the door to the workplace, "keeping an eye on the picketers at
I can't see this lasting (Score:5, Insightful)
I do hope it doesn't last. Dirty pool indeed.
Both sides are out of hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Telus has some notorious issues with how they run the business, service customers, and pay their subcontractors.
The union is, however, living in a fantasy world. Rates for telecom services have dropped over the past several years. There is competition from broadband phone services (including vonage.ca), alternative cellular providers, and alternative ISPs. The days of the near monopoly by the big provincial telcos are over, as are the obscene profits they used to generate.
Unions will simply have t
Re:fill us in... (Score:3, Informative)
Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website [www.cbc.ca]
Telus to implement most recent offer to union (NB: this was a unilateral move) [www.cbc.ca]
Telus wins injunction against striking workers [www.cbc.ca]
That second link is the kicker. This little spat has been going on for quite a long time and is, quite frankly, getting tiresome. Between Telus and the ongoing Bell Canada strike, it's amazing that we here in Canada still have a working telephone network. And by working, I mean one that hasn't fallen into a c
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?
Is this a trick question?
They're screwed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They're screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasonable? (Score:3, Informative)
On this side of the Atlantic the answer is a big fat NO. The only exception I could imagine is if the the Union is publishing libelous statements about them. Of course Canadian law may differ.
Re:Reasonable? (Score:2)
Sure (Score:2, Insightful)
It's their infrastructure, they can do what they want with it, unless they have contracts saying they will not. If they want to point every request to zombo.com [zombo.com] they can. That said, if I was one of their customers and found out about this type of censorship I'd consider switching. It seems like a pretty underhanded practice.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like if I fly American Airlines to Chicago then go murder 800 people. Did AA "aid a criminal"? No they're a common carrier who flies anyone who is eligible.
Similarly if Telus takes up the job of filtering and re-routing specific traffic then they're responsible for [say] viruses or other malware I may stumble upon. They're no longer a common carrier if they deny access to legitimate eligible traffic.
I'm not taking any sides in the strike/business issue. Personally I think quite a few "big corps" are getting away with too much b.s. these days. That said I also think having no job is worse than having a job that doesn't pay fairly.
Though I guess at some point you have to take a stand and demand your share of the proverbial pie.
Tom
Re:Sure (Score:2)
Re:Sure (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure blocking access to a website neccessarily takes away their common carrier status. Just because they are blocking a website they don't like, does not mean they have taken responsibility for filtering anything other than this group. It would be an interesting lawsuit.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Informative)
I have said this far to often and I am not sure where everyone gets this idea from but they are wrong.
ISP's are considered customers in the telecom industry and are classified ESP's (that's enhanced service providers).
Re:Sure (Score:3, Informative)
Kjella
Deeeep caca! We're talking revocation of licence (Score:2)
Telus is going to have 'interesting times'...
Re:Halfwit troll (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Mirror (Score:2, Funny)
But really, I thought that was what anonymous proxies are for, although they shouldn't be needed!
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if they were blocking the independently-hosted union.com, they'd be where they had no business to be, and that would obviously be wrong. That's what this story implies is going on. But from TFAs I've been looking at, it's that they're deciding what can be hosted on their own servers. Absolutely their right.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Reasonable? No. But that doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise, I imagine this is dirty, a bad idea, but legal.
stupid move (Score:4, Informative)
From the union site: "Customers who use telus.net as their Internet Service Provider are unable to access this website due to censorship by TELUS. When support is called they claim not to be blocking access. Television station BCTV Global did a story on the 6:00 o'clock news on this issue. Radio station CKNW also had as story on censoring TELUS customers, after receiving calls from numerous TWU members. Both media outlets are in British Columbia. In both cases, the company admitted to censoring TWU members and their customers." emphasis mine
From the site of telus: "Throughout this time, we will work hard to minimize the service impacts of the TWU's activities. We apologize for any inconvenience you may experience and thank you for your patience." emphasis mine
How NOT to do Customer Service (Score:2)
Let's be accurate here (Score:3, Informative)
The union web site www.twu-canada.ca is NOT blocked.
The totally unsanctioned site www.voices-for-change.com is blackholed. You can get to it quite easily using a proxy such as guardster. On VFC there are numerous comments promoting physical violence and doing the "nod-nod wink-wink" with respect to vandalism. They are also acting as a kangaroo-court for union members who do not follow the line prescribed by union militants. This is not a black and white issue of intolerance and censorship.
TELUS still should not block it but I would not condemn them for their actions. The union has done nothing to curb extreme comments and has to some degree encouraged them. When it comes to information Caveat Emptor.
Re:Let's be accurate here (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, yes it is. Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of the website. Is the content of the website within the bounds of CA law? Then it's black & white censorship and Telus should fuck off. Is the content of the website beyond whats acceptable to CA law? Then Telus should follow the guidelines established by CA law, instead of taking it upon themselves to censor the content.
When it comes to information Caveat Emptor.
Pretty fucking hard to take your information with a grain of salt when your ISP won't let you look at it , is it?
Telus is clearly outside the bounds of reasonable behavior. If the website is dangerous, or libelous, or any of those other things they claim, then there are clear and effective legal channels to follow. Cutting off access because they don't like it is ridiculous. Moreover, it's stupid, because assuming CA law is similiar to US in this regard (which I believe it is), they just lost common carrier status.
Backfire (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Backfire (Score:3, Informative)
This may backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, we have a telecoms company deciding unilateraly to filter a website because they feel like it. If they can filter one, they may find themselves liable to filter all of the others. Imagine the court case
Lawyer: You must block goatse.ca because it is offensive to all mankind
Telco: We can't be expected proactively police and block websites: too much information, freedom of speech, etc, etc,
Lawyer: But what about that time you blocked your union website? You can block "offensive" material when you want to.
Telco: Um...
Sounds like Canada's Godfrey vs. Demon (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm... This is looking like the UK's infamous Godfrey vs. Demon case all over again, but now with the ISP giving up the should-have-been-common-sense defence Demon tried.
For those who don't know, this was a landmark UK legal ruling from the mid-90s. Godfrey was defamed in newsgroup postings, and sued Demon, a major UK ISP, for hosting those postings. Demon's defence was basically that the postings were made by an unknown individual who wasn't a Demon customer, and they were simply providing access to content accessible to anyone on the Internet, and so shouldn't be held responsible. Essentially, though I don't know whether UK law uses the same term, they were arguing that it was unreasonable for a common carrier to be held responsible for the information they carry.
Demon famously lost, but they lost on the basis that having been told about the defamatory content they should have removed it from their systems, not on the basis that they shouldn't have been hosting it in the first place. This opened up a huge legal can of worms, because it put all ISPs within the jurisdiction in a position of having to remove any offensive content in the face of any complaint or risk being sued, yet then acting as courts and censoring material without giving the source so much as a right to reply. AFAIK, the resulting legal minefield remains unsafe to this day, and ISPs get shaky at the very mention of the case. On the flip side, the case also seems to confirm that ISPs are not to be treated as publishers, with publishers' liabilities for content, just for providing access to material: the "common carrier" principle appears to be respected here.
In today's Canadian version, however, it seems the ISP has already given up any pretense of being a mere provider of access to globally available information. If an active decision was made to kill access to a particular web site, it's hard to see how they didn't just make themselves liable by default for every site they allow access to that contains defamation, kiddie porn, or any other $OFFENSIVE_CONTENT.
How this move was approved by their lawyers, I can't imagine...
Of course not. (Score:2)
There's one big 'BUT' in this. They're not blocking the site itself. They're preventing their own customers from accessing that site. The rest of the world can still access it. While the Union is obviously pissed at this, the people who should be outraged are the cust
Onion Routing (Score:2)
Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
My opinion is "no".
The truth is, even though they're an ISP, they're still a private company (as opposed to say a government entity), and can do anything they want. It's understandable that while involved in a conflict, they'd want to suppress the opposing side. Is it right? Not in the least.
I don't know Canadian law, and IANAL, but in America I know your Constitutional right to freedom of speech applies to the government supressing your speech. Plenty of people will reference the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenerio, but I'll go with this one instead. If you were to go into a Christian church, and draw a circle of protection on the floor (in a non-permanent way, of course), and start a [insert pagan tradition of your chioce here] ceremony, you'd be told to stop, probably not in the nicest terms.
Is it right for the telco to block the union's site from customers using that telco? No. Can they? Sure. Just like they can arbitrarly block "bad" web sites, spammers email or networks, or even potentially exploitable ports on user machines. They can do anything they'd like with their own equipment, they're under no obligation to provide service to "everything". Of course, when the word gets out that they've blocked something like this, which isn't in the best interest of their customers, it looks very bad for them.
As I work for an Internet Provider (hosting provider), I consider it unacceptable to block any particular network, and I won't do it. As a journalist and an advocate of free speech, I consider it very wrong. People do wrong things every day, it's up to the customers to make the decision of if they want to patronize a company who behaves this way.
Use someone else (Score:2)
ISP "Telus" has admitted that they are blocking all attempts to access a website set
Now I am not one to be pro-union, actually I am not. But I firmly believe in the freedom of speach and users on Telus aught to just go to Shaw in protest. An ISP that filters legitimate and legally permissable political content from it's users aught to be taken to court to get a huge punitive kick.
Telus sucks anyway and this is a Telus free household and will remain that way. Maybe once this land line monopoly goes o
No... but... (Score:4, Insightful)
But, this is not censorship. This is a service that you pay for and you expect to be delivered to you. Additionally, the union has absolutely no expectation of delivery to customers of that telco. If they did, then services like safeaccess [safeaccess.com] couldn't exist. Every pornographer in the world could run around and demand that parents allow thier children to view porn.
Is this unreasonable? Yes. And it will likely cost them (lost customers, time fighting with annoyed customers, small claims court).
Re:No... but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is. You can argue that this is censorship that the Telco has the right to impose (and in fact you seem to be making that argument) but it is in fact censorship.
Every pornographer in the world could run around and demand that parents allow thier children to view porn.
Parents have broad rights to censor the information their children have access to. There's nothing inherently wrong with censorship in appropriate circumstances, such as in the parent-child relationship,
wow: two questions I have no clue about (Score:2)
I'd find in favor of the employer blocking a site th
There is a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
A strike is where management is ready to negotiate a deal, but the workers refuse to talk, and refuse to work in the meantime under the old contract.
It is wrong to suggest that the choice of phrase is made to influence public opinion about the situation. A "lock-out" and a "strike" represent two very different situations.
Locked out, but not Quickly! (Score:3, Insightful)
Management has allowed them to continue working without a contract for a number of years now.
What the union wants is guaranteed job security. Problem is, they're clinging to contracts written back when they were working under a government-owned business with 20 year old technology. Now they work for a for-profit
Go to CRTC - lodge complaint (Score:3, Informative)
I have lodged a complaint with them at:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ [crtc.gc.ca]
Feel free to do the same.
gus
Re:Go to CRTC - lodge complaint (Score:3, Informative)
Before you defend them (Score:4, Interesting)
correction: link to union web page, and others (Score:3, Informative)
site blocked to telus isp customers by telus [voices-for-change.com] (this is seen directly, not through proxy)
blocked site seen through the proxy that they recommend [pfak.org]
Telus corporate home page [mytelus.com] (this is the isp home page)
Telus fair use policy [mytelus.com] (part of agreement with telus isp customers)
PLEASE CONTACT TELUS EXECUTIVE OFFICES (Score:3, Informative)
PLEASE SPEND A BUCK TO CALL THEM.
They seem to have no idea that their action is plain stupid. Most of you can access the site: it is only a small subset, those of us with Telus ADSL, that can not access it.
Please help get them on the cluetrain.
The executive claims that Telus is working with other ISPs to block access to the website, instead of using proper legal channels to force the TWU to remove the disputed photographs.
555 Robson Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6B 3K9
phone (604) 697-8044
fax (604) 432-9681
It's worth the couple bucks it'll cost to clue these mofo's in that WE WILL NOT CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS.
Privacy Issues with the website (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see this go to court.
Re:Easy answer - No (Score:2)
No.
The customers, not the union (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, Telus just opened up a big can of worms: The Canadian Constitution (1982) guarantees freedom of expression (including on the internet) as a fundamental right:
Seems pretty open and shut - Telus is going to get its ass wupped.Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Telus is clearly in the wrong here. If they think the site is that bad, they should get a take-down order from the courts. Then I would have no problem with them blocking the site, and perhaps forcing the hosting ISP to take down the site.
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:3, Funny)
exactly!!! Comcast should block all access to Yahoo (since they're partners with SBC/Yahoo DSL), Charter, and all the other broadband providers out there. In fact a search of google should just return on links back to Comcast!!
satelite TV providers should block commericals for compe
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:3, Informative)
Telus has been a crappy company since it gobbled up Alberta and BC's telco companies. Last year their customer relations got so bad that the CRTC actually threatened to order a rollback of their rates. They had doctors and shutins who were waiting weeks to get repairs done, and while things
Re:Now down for the rest of it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It only applies to the government. (Score:3, Funny)
No, I'm quite right, my good Canadian friend. (Score:3, Informative)
The "Fundamental Freedoms" portion you quoted in your earlier post comes from Section 2 of the Charter (which, recall, is a portion of the Constitution). Remember, the purpose of the Charter is to protect Canadian citizens from the various governments.
Indeed, see Section 32 of the Charter:
Re:No, I'm quite right, my good Canadian friend. (Score:3, Informative)
Simply put, there is a Charter of Rights, and a Constitution to give them teeth. There was also a timetable in which to enact those rights (agreed to by 9 of the 10 provinces in the "night of the long knives").
Re:well (Score:2)
Re:Unions are old and broken.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I hate trolls almost as much as you hate unions, but I'll still feed you.
The problem is the the other "gawd damn job" is probably no better than the original one. Do you honestly expect someone who is qualified to work at Wal-Mart to have the skills necessary to be able to obtain good enough employment to secure a living wage and proper healthcare benefits without the help of a union to use the strength of numbers to force management to provide such things? Of course not. It just won't happen.
Sure, you'll read about how "gracious" some employers are and give all these great things to their employees, but it remains that Wal-Mart's execs have some of the deepest pockets in the country. They go on and on about how much they give to the communities they destroy, and yet, they can't afford to give their own employees enough money to stay off of government healthcare. The simple fact is that most employers do not care about employees. They care about the bottom line.
It's not as easy as "going somewhere else." Without unions, your taxes would have to be double to pay for all the poor and sick people we'd have in this country.
The problem with unions today isn't that they've ran out of their usefulness. The problem is that they're still suffering from corruption of the past and mismanagement.
The arguments you make in your post are the same arguments that have been made for hundreds of years, and they were proven wrong then as well.
Also, I recall quite clearly a report that out of grocers in my area (Southwest Ohio), those with unions actually had lower average prices on the same products compared to those without unions. So much for that theory.
Re:Unions are old and broken.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So many of us are opposed to it since it is forced on the workers against their will. At least in the US it is: most union members are part of "closed shops" where it is "join this organization or you will be fired". Much of my opposition to unions as such would vanish if they became legitimate organizations, and only took money from individuals who wanted to contribute it. I detest organizations that operate largely on stolen/extorted money.
This is very different from the capitalists forming a corporation: an operation that requires complete consent of those pooling the resources and signing the documents.
'Clearly, most advocates of free enterprise...'
That is the important thing. Free enterprise. It certainly is not very free if, as a condition of working, you are forced to join an organization that has absolutely nothing to do with your ability or qualifications to do the job.
Re:Unions are old and broken.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Union security clauses in contracts just prevent free riders: in states where these clauses are illegal (talk about elimination of freedom of contract!) what usually happens is that a bunch of employees decide they want the be
Re:Unions are old and broken.. (Score:3, Interesting)
You may be right about some unions, but many unions have a monopoly on the field they control. Try to star in a major motion picture without being a member of SAG. Try to be a teacher in Washington State without being in the WEA. It's impossible. In fact, that's the very reason I didn't go into education in college... I want to be a teacher, but I sure as hell don't want to sup