but if we unionize, we can demand higher wages! oh wait...

I guess what bothers me the most about this is the fact that it detracts and distracts from the genuine needs that led to the creation of America's first labor unions .....

I would like to see better applications of organized labor in the American workplace ..... AND genuine reform of unions who have long ago abandoned their original mission .....

But the blogosphere is hardly the place, for crying out loud ...

Oddly, I just came to your blog by clicking through some of my buttons (testing my new 'thoner07 button) and landed on the "Coalition for Unpaid Bloggers" page.

Looks like I'll be adding a new button to my blog, with a link back here.

Kyle, the lack of a union hasn't kept me from demanding higher wages ever since I started blogging way back in Ought Two. And the presence of a union would prove to be equally effective in meeting those demands. ;-)

Jeff, most unions nowadays seem to exist for the sole purpose of continuing to exist. (OK, that's a unsupportable generalization, but I like the way it sounds.) Same with bloggers. (Uh oh; there I go again!)

Julie, I welcome the company!

Eric, I think we're on the same wavelength, when it comes to where organized labor has ultimately gone, or could go ..... except your statement is one crafted by a proud citizen of a right-to-work, pro-business, anti-union state ..... while mine is crafted by a proud one-time citizen of a state where fledgeling unions were the only ones to stand up to abusive practices and policies in the workplace .....

most unions nowadays seem to exist for the sole purpose of continuing to exist.

That's a pretty fair description of many churches, too.

Jeff, you might be surprised at my general philosophy toward the concept of unions. I think they are absolutely needed in some situations, and I agree that there have been several times in history that they accomplished lofty goals, and they may well do so again. But no human-created organization is perfect, either in intent or action (and I think we agree on that point). What I find most unacceptable about unionization is the sense of entitlement - that which goes beyond the reasonable expectation of a fair wage for a fair day's work - that seems almost inevitable in a union shop. (And, for the record, I've worked in several of them.)

I've also experienced first hand how the innocent customer is the one that gets drenched in the p***ing matches between management and the union.

I'm not going to register for LAT to read it, but if it's the same AP article that shows up elsewhere then one of the main goals of the bloggers is probably to get access to health insurance.

George, I'm sorry; I forgot that the LAT requires registration. I guess I get right in via cookies. Anyway, it is the same story, I'm sure, and you're right about the health insurance thing. I still can't figure out why bloggers are such a special group as to merit something like that.

You could start a content-free union...

Janie, good idea. I'll visit with my management consultant about that. ;-)

It's not so much they deserve health insurance, as the left side of the blog world has been talking up socialized medicine so much, in preparation for using it as a 2008 campaign issue, that they think that by highlighting their lack of it as bloggers, this will help next year's crusade (as if voters are going to be swayed to mark the 'D' candidate because someone with a website doesn't have a prescription drug co-pay).

Like almost everything in the world, unions can be seen as good or bad depending on when and where you look at it. They were invaluable in improving the lot of the working man in the last century and there are still places where they could do a world of good.

But I doubt blogging is one of those places. Are conditions really that bad? I say, let those who think so go out on strike until their demands are met.

I say, let those who think so go out on strike until their demands are met.

Hear, hear!