Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (45474)	2/18/2011 1:24:53 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

I strongly agree, Bee. Plus, the government is not concerned about quality, which is an even stronger argument for never allowing government unions. For corporations and small business owners, all businesses should have the right to set the terms of employment with regards to conditions, hours, salaries, and benefits (if any). Employees have the right to either accept the conditions or not. Plus, citizens are always free to start their own businesses and create their own conditions, hours, salaries, and benefits if they do not like the terms of offered by companies. It's such a beautiful system. A business owner can choose to accept lower-quality employees who accept lower terms, or he/she can be more selective by offering more competitive terms and hiring higher quality employees. The responsibility -- there's that word again! -- of employees is to make him/herself as competitive as possible. By doing so, he/she increases his/her chances of being hired under more favorable terms. The beautiful, natural order breaks down when (a) unions, backed by the NLRB, become involved and force employers to accept lower-quality employees for greater and greater terms, and/or (b) the government forces employers to hire people based on their demographic profile rather than their abilities and qualifications. -ng-