This was in the Owen Sound Sun Times, it's not linked on the public and free side of the site, so I've included it in its entirety.
Why must I be inconvenienced by workers unhappy in their jobs?
I wasn't allowed to wash my car today. There was an extortion in progress. A bunch of guys were blocking the entryway and threatening the car wash owner. If he didn't give them money, they would destroy his business.
Of course the police could do nothing. Because these weren't ordinary guys; these were union guys. On strike.
Geez. I now understand why they call it "Organized Crime." They've unionized it.
Lucky for those guys at the car wash, I am filled with the milk of human kindness around New Year's. Any other time I would have just gunned the engine (in neutral of course) and watched them scatter.
I don't understand why I should be inconvenienced by a bunch of people who are unhappy with their jobs.
But that's the problem with a lot of die-hard unionists, in my opinion. They are unhappy with their jobs, and, in fact are unhappy with the idea that they have to work at all.
That's why they believe in the eternal union promise: join us and you will get more and more money. For doing less and less work.
(I have stolen this thought from Rush Limbaugh, which, in the eyes of millions, makes it akin to Scripture.)
And it certainly has been gospel truth in my experience with unions. In my five or six union jobs, the union reps always told us that the next contract negotiation was going to get us more money, more benefits, and more goodies, along with a shorter work week, more paid holidays and longer breaks. Or else we'd go on strike and cripple the business.
What's wrong with this picture?
Obviously, it's totally unsustainable. No business can survive by paying more and more money for less and less work.
We know exactly what happens if they try. They become non-productive, non competitive, and broke. Can you say 'Detroit'?
It's not surprising to me that most of the companies showing profits and actually hiring right now, are the companies that have no unions. Consider Wal-Mart. While most retailers were losing money, Wal-Mart profits were up in 2008 and 2009. They are opening more stores, while unionized retailers are closing stores. They are hiring while unionized companies are laying off.
Could there be a connection here? Ya think?
A few weeks ago, on Friday, Nov. 27, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that Wal-Mart was well within its rights to close that store in Jonquière, Quebec where the employees had voted in a union.
I for one, applaud that decision. It's a perfect record. Wal-Mart: 7437 stores. Union: nothing. And that union? Local 503 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, which got in by claiming it was helping WalMart workers: Did that union help those 109 members who were suddenly out of a job when the store was closed? No. Look at all the union guys in Owen Sound who have been thrown out of work in the last few years. Are their unions helping them? No. Unions only help themselves. And the cure is simple. If you can vote them in, you can certainly vote them out.
And if you don't want to do that, well then, you can man up and face the terrible consequences: you can be the one to explain to my wife why our car is still dirty.