Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
That's not at all what I'm saying. It's what the motives are that matters. In politics you will never satisfy everyone. My view is that if corporations lobby politicians to make changes that benefit 1% of the voting public while neglecting its major impact on programs and policies that benefit the other 99% it is less ethical than a union lobbying for changes that will have a benefit to the 99% while having a lesser overall impact on the other 1%. Again, unions do not want to put employers out of business, they are simply trying to make sure the middle class doesn't get left the scraps of the economic landscape that they drive. A strong middle class is good for the economy so at the end of the day everyone benefits.
|
Nevermind that corporations are not lobbying or making public declarations to interfere in public wage negotiations (as opposed to the reverse). But sure, I guess I'll play along. You are stating that:
- Corporations lobby
only to the benefit of the 1%.
- Corporations are in fact able to force the government to neglect all programs that might help the 99% (more than 4 million people) and actively do so.
- Unions lobby only to help the 99% (again, all 4 million people) and not just help their membership.
- Unions have determined what the middle class is and are actively and consciously looking to help them (however that is defined and nevermind the rhetoric of them "only getting the scraps")
You are saying
it is good that the unions are doing something unethical because it is less unethical given the potential hypothetical alternative which is predicated on all of those absolute and unlikely assumptions and statements above.
Do I understand your claim correctly?