And your point is....?
You keep saying that this Union question applies to more than one nation, but you do not give any strength to why the union issue might be different for someone outside America. What makes this idea more desireable to someone in Britain, say, than America? Are unions somehow a different entity outside the US? If so, how? I have relatives who argue the value of unions and then tell me stories of this bloke who was caught sleeping on the job and the union saved his job. In fact, the union threatened to strike putting all members out of work to prevent this one lazy person from being fired. Is this different outside of America? I remember my husband coming home from a strike line where union members had been arrested for throwing rocks and firing guns at trucks crossing the picket lines. Violence seems to always be a part of the history of unions. Is this a justifiable means to an end? Is this only in America? Are you implying that there are computer IT sweatshops that work people ungodly hours for little or no pay and inhuman conditions that need a union to protect them? If so, state facts, don't imply that we who do not approve of unions in general and the abuse of thier power, sometimes run by gangsters, are just whining. I have witnessed the advantages and disadvantages of unions in many different occupations. I have seen people lose their homes because the strike outlasted peoples ability to endure. I have seen companies close unionized portions of their business because they could no longer afford the liability of being put out of business every strike. American companies often move their production plants to non-unionized states and/or countries to avoid the problems involved with unions. Unless you have more to say than "There is a world outside our shores", you will not sway the opinion of this person who sees unions as a very bad thing.
