>>8053577>Unions are mafias because they demand stuff and can go on strike if these are not metI mean... sure, you expect them to act all hippie-like? I'll give you an example
>an employer fires a pregnant co-worker for the dumbest of reasons as to not pay for maternal leave>workers get madso instead of striking they should just let that happen? Think that's fair?
>achtually you're intelectually dishonest because where's the quotations im too lazy to research??Well, it comes from first hand experience as in my country (European) we have the entire metallurgic sector Unionized, they do research on these topics and ask for an adequate and minimum pay for their respective jobs and usually get in agreements with the employer.
>still not getting the irony in the statementok so, you're talking about the government controlling the masses, however you're against Unions and you're fine with the Burgeoise powers controlling their workers in any way, even if they circumvent legal loopholes and such, because companies are very trustworthy with little profit incentive!
I'm also guessing that you completely reject the idea of a government and you fantasize about a distopic anarco-capitalist state.
>about the "1%"ok, so we're talking about a government controlled Communist economy.
In a Socialist economy the means of production would fall into the ownership of the workers/state and they'd use those resources to distribute it across the country as is needed. Government officials (or as you call them, the 1%) might enjoy a lot more benefits due to their position, sure, but they should work in the interest of the people and of course, the hoarding of wealth in a Communist/Socialist state would be impossible, thus making the "1%" in this case non-existant as there's no real hoarding of wealth.
TL;DR the 1% is about the hoarding of wealth and resources, not "RICH PEOPLE EXIST!!!111!"
>that flaglol communist Peru