search
top

Addressing the Real Problems

Here’s a pretty good editorial talking bout Philadelphia’s problems, and unlike most of their politicians, looking for real solutions:

Access to family sustaining blue collar jobs is the first step toward economic empowerment for any community.  If the black and other minority populations of Philadelphia are shut out of such jobs they have little hope of improving their quality of life.  Such hopelessness is a breeding ground for despair and ultimately violence.  To overcome that two things must occur: Philadelphia’s unions must become more open and accessible to black members, and non-union shops – clearly most hospitable to minority employees – must be given a level playing field to compete for government contracts.

Racism in unions is one of those not talked about practices that’s gone on in the northeast for a long time.  Blacks and other minorities have been systematically kept out of many skilled trades, and it’s contributed a lot of the kinds of inner city poverty you see in the large northeastern cities.  It’s one thing that City Council actually deserves some credit for addressing.

9 Responses to “Addressing the Real Problems”

  1. random says:

    The article seemed to have an anti-union bias. I find it somewhat hypocritical to complain about having freedom taken away when it comes to the 2nd amendment but suggest unions should be regulated. Although I know it isn’t conservatively correct to support unions.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I don’t have any problems with unions, per se. I have a problem with unions as a government protected monopoly on the supply of labor.

  3. random says:

    I’m not arguing that there are some problems, but I do see alot of bias from the right.

  4. straightarrow says:

    Racism in marriage seems to me to be the bigger problem. If there were more marriages among the minority breeders just maybe there wouldn’t be so much hopelessness.

    It seems to me that the breeding grounds is the cause of the hopelessness and not the other way around as stated above.

  5. sysiphus says:

    Saying that unions are/have been less than open to minorities is observation, not bias. Saying that government contracts should give a level playing field to union and non-union contractors is not calling for regulation. If a group has been given special favors, and someone calls for fairness, that is not showing bias against the group that had special status before. Calling for an end to the special favors is actually a call for the restoration of freedoms.

    Sorry, Random, but your pro-union bias is showing.

  6. random says:

    Where do unions get special favors? I don’t see it. You act like the government forces unions on people but they don’t. Some states require open shops, I don’t see any union bias there. I don’t know what your calling for other than that the government should get to chosse who unions accept. They are private organizations and can do what they want. I’m sure you’re riled up when people say that the NRA is just a bunch of backwoods rednecks. How about we have the government make the NRA get more minority members. Unions play an important role. Although I know you would rather have everybody work for a dollar an hour. The problem is that the government intervenes on both sides when it has no buisness to do so. I see your very commited to freedom until you don’t agree with a group, when that happens we need government intervention. Unions aren’t the vast conspiracy that you see them as.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Where do unions get special favors?

    There are lots, but most notably, you can’t fire striking workers. If workers vote to unionize in many states, that shop them has to become closed, and can only hire members of that union.

  8. sysiphus says:

    Easy there, Random; take a deep breath. You have done a whole lot of projecting about me, and most of it is quite incorrect.

    I was referring to the post, and the editorial it referred to, particularly this line:
    The Philadelphia City Council is so frustrated by the lack of progress in improving minority employment that a move was actually made to allow non-union companies to bid on contracts to expand the Pennsylvania Convention Center.
    Now, I’m not from around those parts, but the wording of that suggests that normally only union companies would be allowed to bid on a contract. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Or perhaps either PA or Philadelphia, like many state and municipal governments, has laws requiring them to accept bids only from union companies.

    That is “special favors”, whether it is by law or not. And I find it just as much an affront to freedom and a fair market as I would any law requiring bids only from non-union companies.

    I was specifically referring to this instance in Philadelphia. I was not referring to states which require open shops. (Are there any? I only know of ones that require closed shops, but I don’t keep up on these things. And I don’t consider not requiring a closed shop to be equal to requiring open shops.)

    I’m completely baffled how you could think I was calling for forcing unions to accept certain members, but I apologize if you got that impression. I’m not for forcing anyone to do anything, ever. Not for forcing acceptance of certain individuals into a group, not for forcing a shop to be open or closed to unions, not for forcing contractors to be union companies, not for forcing contractors to be non-union companies.

    As for the rest of your misconceptions:
    I’ve no desire to be associated with the NRA, so you missed on that one. Nonetheless, I wish there were more minority gun owners, just as I wish there were more young ones, females, etc. The only people I want working for a dollar an hour are those who put out dollar an hour work. (I’m really into pay by output, not by hour, whenever possible.) I never want government intervention, even when it benefits me. I have passed up several monetary opportunities because of my beliefs in the limited role of government. I don’t believe in any vast conspiracies, especially that unions are one.

    I think that covers it. Please keep in mind that it is entirely possible for a person to say something you disagree with without that person being the embodiment of everything you disagree with. :-)

  9. random says:

    I think we sort of got away from the article. I agree with some of your points though Sysiphus. Although I will say were unions are given special favors they also have alot of opposition. I still don’t understand how the unions are at fault for the crime problem in philadelphia.

top