It's amazing the sad bunch of posters who've answered this question. Self-professed conservatives on Y!Answers have called unions bad for big business, just a little while ago, there was a question about "liberal" teachers unions providing poor education and it's no secret that Republicans don't support unions the way Democrats do.
So obviously, I get the subtlety in your question saying basically, if unions suck, then so do NFL players because they belong to unions. And everyone climbs all over you and one even called Vicks a "commie."
It's really pathetic that people who basically tell liberals to go f*ck themselves, call them socialists, communists and whatever else, don't even know the definition of the words. If Vicks was a communist, he would be making all that money and equally distributing it amongst his friends, family, neighbors, or just handing it over to the gov't.
The stupidity of some of the people that are on this website makes me ill and woeful for the advancement of Americans.
To actually answer your question. No it doesn't. No more than it makes any union member a socialist. It merely makes them a part of an organization which will stand up for fair treatment and wages from employers.
2007-08-02 10:54:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by genmalia 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No. Being in a trades union does not mean you are a socialist. Rather it is a means to negotiate on a level playing field with management.
Freedom of Association is a basic right which is denied to many Americans. So that leads me to wonder if closed shops should be allowed. Frankly, I think the USA is well behind the curve on this one. The UK got rid of the closed shop 25 years ago and people voted with their feet. unions that actually do some good for the worker (rather than just being political organizations) have remained. Those who don't give a whatsit for their members have faded away.
2007-08-02 10:42:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by skip 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'd probably go with DeMarcus Ware or Patrick Willis. Their combine numbers are pretty similar and split down the middle, though Ware is about 10 pounds heavier than P-Will. Haloti Ngata is up there too, and is easily the most athletic big man in the league. My man ran a 5.13 40 yard dash at all of 338 pounds and had very good 20 yard split and 3 yard cone numbers, which indicate agility and explosiveness.
2016-04-01 12:43:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
All Unions have Socialist Union Bosses, but very few Rank & File Union Members are Socialist.
All of us Rank & File are Exploited by Union Bosses, Organized Crime, and the Democrat Party.
(However, Union Members in Sports, do pretty good for themselves. Lot better than us factory Union Members.)
2007-08-02 10:46:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by wolf 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Socialism and Unionism are not the same thing. Unionism fits into a free market by giving workers a collective voice, but like anything - it can be abused. Socialism is not in harmony with free market thinking because it attempts to force the equalizing of individuals - that by their actions - are not equal.
2007-08-02 10:47:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by wigginsray 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Unions are not socialist, in fact if you consider that unions are always trying to make greater gains for their members, they're the height of capitalism. Not everyone in a union makes the same wages.
2007-08-02 10:40:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dull Jon 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
If they owned stock in the teams, you can be sure they would consider it socialism.
The people you are mocking for calling unions socialism, think anything that allows the worker bee to negotiate a fair wage to be socialism.
To those same folks, anything that give the employee any kind of protection vs their employers, is socialism.
2007-08-02 12:02:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by avail_skillz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Most NFL players graduated from a University and are smart enough to know that it is in their own best interests to be organized.
2007-08-02 10:46:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Socialism is a form of government. Unions are a collective of similarly employed tradesman. Get a clue.
2007-08-02 10:40:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by booman17 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Considering that they almost ALL make enough money to put them in the hated 'Richest 5%', I don't think any socialist in the country would claim them.
2007-08-02 10:40:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dekardkain 3
·
0⤊
1⤋