Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George +Milton Keynes
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>I was wondering if you'd care to expound on this a bit. Where do you take collective bargaining (which seems to start out as a perfectly voluntary operation) as turning into inappropriate rent seeking? Please consider the following and indicate which, in your view, are OK or not OK:
> As there is no benefit from competition, public ownership is the natural way to provide such services. But strict safeguards are needed to ensure the public providers don't abuse their monopoly status, such as by unionized employees' rent seeking.
> -- Roy Langston
A bunch of employees ("the union") sign an agreement not to bargain individually with some employer or group of employers.
The union's agreement with some employer includes a provision barring that employer from hiring anybody not in the unionized bunch.
The union takes (legal) steps to enforce both of its agreements.
There is, to me, something unsettling about both of the agreements. E.g., if the first were to be a 30-year thing and referred to ALL employers, it would seem a bit like signing oneself into slavery; and the second could create a high barrier to entry by non-union employees, especially if it, too, were a multi-year thing.
But there is no recourse to any statutes here, just, arguably, voluntarily consenting individuals giving up various rights in return for various benefits. If you believe that either of such agreements is inappropriate, what, in your view, is the right way to prohibit them, and what should be the limit to prohibitions of that kind?
- It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> However, I suppose the short sentence is now
> the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.
Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.