Unions, Aren't They Great?

[Symmetry]

Absolutely, unions force companies to move their production abroad to countries like China where union membership is compulsory...

Wait, let me start again.

Having to join a union is bad for business, except when it's in China, then unions are good for business...

No, wait, I think I've got it this time.

Unions are good for business sometimes? But bad other times?

Huh.

http://www.economist.com/node/11848496

[thegreekdog]

The largest union for medical professionals

Stupid Obamacare, forcing doctors to defend their interests in 1847 (and who, incidentally, love Medicare).

I wonder why doctors love Medicare.

By the way pimpdave - I don't have any of those things. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT IN A UNION! Duh, duh, duhhhhhh

You have a living wage baby boy. Also, social security. And safety controls only matter to real men with real jobs. Not sissies sitting in offices.

Yeah, but did unions give me that living wage, social security, and safety controls? Nooooooo...

Yes.

Interesting. I have some follow-up questions requiring explanation:

(1) How did unions give me a living wage? Did they take... [deep breath]... attend all my classes from kindergarten through law school, take all my tests, take my SATs and LSATs, apply for my job, work at my firm for me for upwards of 12 hours a day?

(2) How did unions give me social security? Did they take my money and give it to the social security fund, which gives my money to people already on social security, ensuring that I will not get my money back? Money, incidentally, which I could have invested on my own.

(3) Let's take one safety control. Fire alarms. Did unions proceed with cases against companies that failed to install fire alarms? Did they hire their own attorneys for those cases? Did the unions lobby state and local government to ensure that fire alarms were installed in every building?

(4) Are you being cheeky?

[PLAYER57832]

The largest union for medical professionals

Stupid Obamacare, forcing doctors to defend their interests in 1847 (and who, incidentally, love Medicare).

I wonder why doctors love Medicare.

Because it actually provides care for their patients, instead of puting the doctors in the position of either refusing care or paying for it themselves, more than they do already.

By the way pimpdave - I don't have any of those things. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT IN A UNION! Duh, duh, duhhhhhh

It IS thanks to unions that you have what you have. That you are not now in a union and get most of it anyway is becuase of the success of unions before.. just like we all enjoy peace even though most of us have never fought in a war.

[Symmetry]

The largest union for medical professionals

Stupid Obamacare, forcing doctors to defend their interests in 1847 (and who, incidentally, love Medicare).

I wonder why doctors love Medicare.

By the way pimpdave - I don't have any of those things. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT IN A UNION! Duh, duh, duhhhhhh

You have a living wage baby boy. Also, social security. And safety controls only matter to real men with real jobs. Not sissies sitting in offices.

Yeah, but did unions give me that living wage, social security, and safety controls? Nooooooo...

Yes.

Interesting. I have some follow-up questions requiring explanation:

(1) How did unions give me a living wage? Did they take... [deep breath]... attend all my classes from kindergarten through law school, take all my tests, take my SATs and LSATs, apply for my job, work at my firm for me for upwards of 12 hours a day?

(2) How did unions give me social security? Did they take my money and give it to the social security fund, which gives my money to people already on social security, ensuring that I will not get my money back? Money, incidentally, which I could have invested on my own.

(3) Let's take one safety control. Fire alarms. Did unions proceed with cases against companies that failed to install fire alarms? Did they hire their own attorneys for those cases? Did the unions lobby state and local government to ensure that fire alarms were installed in every building?

(4) Are you being cheeky?

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, the poll has a lost of 4 things that labor unions gave us.

Here is my own list of things labor unions took away:
Gas pump attendants who pump your gas
Elevator Men
Chauffers
Live-In Maids, Nannies and Butlers
Grocers who go and get your stuff for you

Technology, not unions took those away.
AND.. for the most part, made them just plain unneeded.

Serfs

predates unions. Political revolutions accomplished this, but yeah. unions made real pay for real work a reality for millions of underclassmen and women.

Doctors for whom the House Call is Standard

Try again --- medical lawsuits, availability of transportation and demand for medical care that could be more readily met in an office all lead to this.

Etc.

Since labor is now so expensive, instead of the top 20% affording these necessities all the time, only the 1% can afford it. Unions destroyed the rightful order of things, in which everywhere I go, I get waited upon by people who can't afford to eat at the same table as me. Now, even though I'm relatively well off, I can't afford anything. Unions basically created the middle class in the short term, but since it is an unsustainable form of life, it destroyed it in the long haul too. Also, look how many jobs are gone. At least in Serf periods everyone was guaranteed a job.

You need to reread history.

Its not unions that "made labor too expensive"... the situation prior to unions was that people worked 10-12 hour days for wages that allowed them to cram into unsafe tenements, eat food that was often unsafe and not filling, truly nutritious.

The current system is only unsustainable if you begin by assuming that its perfectly OK for the 1% to have over 99% of the wealth. If you feel that those lower down have a right to a bit more, which is what you claim above, then it is not unions, but the greedy top few who you need to blame.

Its no different than the monarches claiming they have an inherent right to all they see, never mind if serfs starve because they just don't have right to anything. Today, we start with more basic rights, but those rights are being challenged and quickly taken away. For most people the idea of a 40 hour work week is a dream, not a reality.. and the idea of paying for a decent house and decent food, clothing without government assistance, despite working well over 40 hours in 2-3 jobs, is also a dream.

[thegreekdog]

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

I've never thought about it as a union. First, I don't have to join the ABA (and I'm not currently a member since most of their dollars go to politicians I do not support). Second, the benefits of joining the ABA are some credit card deals and access to a magazine, ignoring the indirect lobbying benefits one receives (which again, does not really benefit me at all since I'm not a plaintiff's attorney). Third, the licensure of attorneys is done at the state level, not by the ABA.

The ABA is a lot like the American Medical Association, but, to most, it's much less respectable.

[Symmetry]

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

I've never thought about it as a union. First, I don't have to join the ABA (and I'm not currently a member since most of their dollars go to politicians I do not support). Second, the benefits of joining the ABA are some credit card deals and access to a magazine, ignoring the indirect lobbying benefits one receives (which again, does not really benefit me at all since I'm not a plaintiff's attorney). Third, the licensure of attorneys is done at the state level, not by the ABA.

The ABA is a lot like the American Medical Association, but, to most, it's much less respectable.

But you did take the LSat, and I guess consider that to be a good standardised test?

I'd say that it's a union. Obviously with the benefits and negatives that come from a union where membership is mostly voluntary (I'm not sure how many law schools avoid the LSats, or their general oversight).

[PLAYER57832]

The largest union for medical professionals

Stupid Obamacare, forcing doctors to defend their interests in 1847 (and who, incidentally, love Medicare).

I wonder why doctors love Medicare.

By the way pimpdave - I don't have any of those things. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT IN A UNION! Duh, duh, duhhhhhh

You have a living wage baby boy. Also, social security. And safety controls only matter to real men with real jobs. Not sissies sitting in offices.

Yeah, but did unions give me that living wage, social security, and safety controls? Nooooooo...

Yes.

Interesting. I have some follow-up questions requiring explanation:

(1) How did unions give me a living wage? Did they take... [deep breath]... attend all my classes from kindergarten through law school, take all my tests, take my SATs and LSATs, apply for my job, work at my firm for me for upwards of 12 hours a day?

Actually, they ARE part of why education was affordable for you. Seem to remember you saying you went to parochial school, even they are partially supported by taxpayers... in large part because unions faught against child labor and for child education.

They ALSO, whether you wish to admit it or not set the standard for what a general working day and week were. That you make more and have better conditions is reflective of the fact that those underneat also are able to garner better conditions and wages. You just happen to do better, but you still owe unions for the base.

(2) How did unions give me social security? Did they take my money and give it to the social security fund, which gives my money to people already on social security, ensuring that I will not get my money back? Money, incidentally, which I could have invested on my own.

Actually, its those communists..

Seriously, it was the Depression that led to so many having nothing to fall back upon that encouraged creation of some kind of safety net. While the impact of unions is debated, the rise of unions led to the entire climate that workers actually did have basic rights beyond just what their bosses decided to offer out of the goodness of their hearts.

And.. the Depression answers that bit about you can invest on your own. Sure, if everything goes great. However, the problem is that unless you are able to invest significant amounts, then you are better off in a set retirement plan.
.

(3) Let's take one safety control. Fire alarms. Did unions proceed with cases against companies that failed to install fire alarms? Did they hire their own attorneys for those cases? Did the unions lobby state and local government to ensure that fire alarms were installed in every building?.

I see, so becuase unions did not create Santa Claus, they have nothing to do with the fact that people often get Christmas off ?

Unions did not do everything, but they DID create an environment where workers actually have rights and are to get just compensation that is not just based on whatever the employer decides to provide, but also what it actually takes workers to live. That this is slipping is directly correlated to the loss of union power.

[thegreekdog]

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

I've never thought about it as a union. First, I don't have to join the ABA (and I'm not currently a member since most of their dollars go to politicians I do not support). Second, the benefits of joining the ABA are some credit card deals and access to a magazine, ignoring the indirect lobbying benefits one receives (which again, does not really benefit me at all since I'm not a plaintiff's attorney). Third, the licensure of attorneys is done at the state level, not by the ABA.

The ABA is a lot like the American Medical Association, but, to most, it's much less respectable.

But you did take the LSat, and I guess consider that to be a good standardised test?

I'd say that it's a union. Obviously with the benefits and negatives that come from a union where membership is mostly voluntary (I'm not sure how many law schools avoid the LSats, or their general oversight).

http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html

Maybe your understanding of unions and my understanding of unions are different.

[Symmetry]

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

I've never thought about it as a union. First, I don't have to join the ABA (and I'm not currently a member since most of their dollars go to politicians I do not support). Second, the benefits of joining the ABA are some credit card deals and access to a magazine, ignoring the indirect lobbying benefits one receives (which again, does not really benefit me at all since I'm not a plaintiff's attorney). Third, the licensure of attorneys is done at the state level, not by the ABA.

The ABA is a lot like the American Medical Association, but, to most, it's much less respectable.

But you did take the LSat, and I guess consider that to be a good standardised test?

I'd say that it's a union. Obviously with the benefits and negatives that come from a union where membership is mostly voluntary (I'm not sure how many law schools avoid the LSats, or their general oversight).

http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html

Maybe your understanding of unions and my understanding of unions are different.

Perhaps- my take would be a group of workers- say in this case lawyers, grouping together to exert influence as a group that they would not otherwise have as individuals. Say to improve working standards, or to lobby government. What would be your understanding that makes this not a union?

[thegreekdog]

Actually, they ARE part of why education was affordable for you. Seem to remember you saying you went to parochial school, even they are partially supported by taxpayers... in large part because unions faught against child labor and for child education.

They ALSO, whether you wish to admit it or not set the standard for what a general working day and week were. That you make more and have better conditions is reflective of the fact that those underneat also are able to garner better conditions and wages. You just happen to do better, but you still owe unions for the base.

I did not attend parochial school. I attended public school.

Why did unions fight against child labor laws? Why did unions fight for child education? Are you sure it was unions fighting for those things and not something else?

As for the general working day and week, those items are not applicable to me. I work at least 60 hours a week, and usually around 80. I work between 12 and 16 hours a day every day. I do not get paid overtime. I'm perfectly fine with this situation and am not complaining, just to caveat.

Seriously, it was the Depression that led to so many having nothing to fall back upon that encouraged creation of some kind of safety net. While the impact of unions is debated, the rise of unions led to the entire climate that workers actually did have basic rights beyond just what their bosses decided to offer out of the goodness of their hearts.

And.. the Depression answers that bit about you can invest on your own. Sure, if everything goes great. However, the problem is that unless you are able to invest significant amounts, then you are better off in a set retirement plan.

Right, not unions.

I see, so becuase unions did not create Santa Claus, they have nothing to do with the fact that people often get Christmas off ?

Unions did not do everything, but they DID create an environment where workers actually have rights and are to get just compensation that is not just based on whatever the employer decides to provide, but also what it actually takes workers to live. That this is slipping is directly correlated to the loss of union power.

Maybe you need to read through the thread. I'm not denigrating unions. I have nothing against them. They've done some great things for blue collar workers in the United States.

However, what I am stating is that I, thegreekdog, do not enjoy various things in my life primarily because of unions.

As for "what it actually takes workers to live" probably has nothing to do with unions. Why aren't there more unions then? The pro-union laws are as effective now as they were 50 years ago.

[thegreekdog]

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

I've never thought about it as a union. First, I don't have to join the ABA (and I'm not currently a member since most of their dollars go to politicians I do not support). Second, the benefits of joining the ABA are some credit card deals and access to a magazine, ignoring the indirect lobbying benefits one receives (which again, does not really benefit me at all since I'm not a plaintiff's attorney). Third, the licensure of attorneys is done at the state level, not by the ABA.

The ABA is a lot like the American Medical Association, but, to most, it's much less respectable.

But you did take the LSat, and I guess consider that to be a good standardised test?

I'd say that it's a union. Obviously with the benefits and negatives that come from a union where membership is mostly voluntary (I'm not sure how many law schools avoid the LSats, or their general oversight).

http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html

Maybe your understanding of unions and my understanding of unions are different.

Perhaps- my take would be a group of workers- say in this case lawyers, grouping together to exert influence as a group that they would not otherwise have as individuals. Say to improve working standards, or to lobby government. What would be your understanding that makes this not a union?

I don't believe the ABA is improving working standards or exerting influence on anything other than the government. I view a union as a collection of workers enabling the collection to organize and exert influence over a private organization (and/or the government) to obtain better wages, working conditions, and benefits.

The ABA does not help in obtaining better wages, working conditions, and benefits. I think of it more as a club or a chamber of commerce type organization.

[Symmetry]

Isn't the American Bar Association essentially a type of union for lawyers? LSat accreditation is part of what they do, no?

I'd be interested on your take.

I've never thought about it as a union. First, I don't have to join the ABA (and I'm not currently a member since most of their dollars go to politicians I do not support). Second, the benefits of joining the ABA are some credit card deals and access to a magazine, ignoring the indirect lobbying benefits one receives (which again, does not really benefit me at all since I'm not a plaintiff's attorney). Third, the licensure of attorneys is done at the state level, not by the ABA.

The ABA is a lot like the American Medical Association, but, to most, it's much less respectable.

But you did take the LSat, and I guess consider that to be a good standardised test?

I'd say that it's a union. Obviously with the benefits and negatives that come from a union where membership is mostly voluntary (I'm not sure how many law schools avoid the LSats, or their general oversight).

http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html

Maybe your understanding of unions and my understanding of unions are different.

Perhaps- my take would be a group of workers- say in this case lawyers, grouping together to exert influence as a group that they would not otherwise have as individuals. Say to improve working standards, or to lobby government. What would be your understanding that makes this not a union?

I don't believe the ABA is improving working standards or exerting influence on anything other than the government. I view a union as a collection of workers enabling the collection to organize and exert influence over a private organization (and/or the government) to obtain better wages, working conditions, and benefits.

The ABA does not help in obtaining better wages, working conditions, and benefits. I think of it more as a club or a chamber of commerce type organization.

Hmm, their mission statement (sourced from wiki) suggests that they aim to do most of that:

The ABA mission, as stated in its 2008 mission statement, is "To serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession."[2] The goals and objectives are:

Goal 1: Serve our members. (Objective: Provide benefits, programs and services which promote members’ professional growth and quality of life.)

Goal 2: Improve our profession. (Objectives: 1) Promote the highest quality legal education; 2) Promote competence, ethical conduct and professionalism; 3) Promote pro bono and public service by the legal profession.)

Goal 3: Eliminate bias and enhance diversity. (Objectives: 1) Promote full and equal participation in the association, our profession, and the justice system by all persons; 2) Eliminate bias in the legal profession and the justice system.)

Goal 4: Advance the rule of law. (Objectives: 1) Increase public understanding of and respect for the rule of law, the legal process, and the role of the legal profession at home and throughout the world; 2) Hold governments accountable under law; 3) Work for just laws, including human rights, and a fair legal process; 4)Assure meaningful access to justice for all persons; and 5) Preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary.)

Whether they are effective in achieving those goals is irrelevant to whether they are a union or not (a bad union is still a union, after all).

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's compare my list to the ABA's list.

TGD's List:

(1) Help its members obtain better wages from employers.
(2) Help its members obtain better working conditions from employers.
(3) Help its members obtain better benefits from employers.

ABA's List:

(1) Provide benefits, programs, and services which promote members' professional growth and quality of life. Just fyi - these include things like saving 10% on your Mastercard bill, continuing legal education courses which cost upwards of $200, and providing a hotline for people contemplating suicide.

(2) Promote the highest quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct, and professionalism, and public service. They promote, but do not regulate, legislate, or otherwise contract with employers or attorneys on these things. The state licensing commitees do these things.

(3) Eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

(4) Advance the rule of law (for non-lawyers).

I'm still going with not a union.

[Symmetry]

Okay, let's compare my list to the ABA's list.

TGD's List:

(1) Help its members obtain better wages from employers.
(2) Help its members obtain better working conditions from employers.
(3) Help its members obtain better benefits from employers.

ABA's List:

(1) Provide benefits, programs, and services which promote members' professional growth and quality of life. Just fyi - these include things like saving 10% on your Mastercard bill, continuing legal education courses which cost upwards of $200, and providing a hotline for people contemplating suicide.

(2) Promote the highest quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct, and professionalism, and public service. They promote, but do not regulate, legislate, or otherwise contract with employers or attorneys on these things. The state licensing commitees do these things.

(3) Eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

(4) Advance the rule of law (for non-lawyers).

I'm still going with not a union.

Your list seems to have changed. A more cynical poster than my good self might be inclined to think that you altered it, and indeed the ABA mission statement, to better fit your argument that it's not a union.

I would cordially suggest that if you have to malform both your own statement and that of the ABA to get your argument roughly into a shape that might work, then perhaps you're doing something wrong.

Or right, perhaps, as you're a scab lawyer.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's compare my list to the ABA's list.

TGD's List:

(1) Help its members obtain better wages from employers.
(2) Help its members obtain better working conditions from employers.
(3) Help its members obtain better benefits from employers.

ABA's List:

(1) Provide benefits, programs, and services which promote members' professional growth and quality of life. Just fyi - these include things like saving 10% on your Mastercard bill, continuing legal education courses which cost upwards of $200, and providing a hotline for people contemplating suicide.

(2) Promote the highest quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct, and professionalism, and public service. They promote, but do not regulate, legislate, or otherwise contract with employers or attorneys on these things. The state licensing commitees do these things.

(3) Eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

(4) Advance the rule of law (for non-lawyers).

I'm still going with not a union.

Your list seems to have changed. A more cynical poster than my good self might be inclined to think that you altered it, and indeed the ABA mission statement, to better fit your argument that it's not a union.

I would cordially suggest that if you have to malform both your own statement and that of the ABA to get your argument roughly into a shape that might work, then perhaps you're doing something wrong.

Or right, perhaps, as you're a scab lawyer.

Are you referring to the "from employers" part?

I suppose all of the following are also unions then: the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, local chambers of commerce, private consumer protection groups, and industry-specific groups.

[pimpdave]

[thegreekdog]

Look, you can't blame Symmetry. Blame me.

He had a whole plan where he was going to prove that because I was a member of the ABA, I was a member of a union. Since I'm not a member of the ABA, he had to fall back on the argument that the ABA was a union, which is tenuous at best.

I guess you're being forced to read this thread by your employer. That's probably because you aren't in a union. If you were in a union, you'd be able to choose not to read this thread.

[Symmetry]

Okay, let's compare my list to the ABA's list.

TGD's List:

(1) Help its members obtain better wages from employers.
(2) Help its members obtain better working conditions from employers.
(3) Help its members obtain better benefits from employers.

ABA's List:

(1) Provide benefits, programs, and services which promote members' professional growth and quality of life. Just fyi - these include things like saving 10% on your Mastercard bill, continuing legal education courses which cost upwards of $200, and providing a hotline for people contemplating suicide.

(2) Promote the highest quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct, and professionalism, and public service. They promote, but do not regulate, legislate, or otherwise contract with employers or attorneys on these things. The state licensing commitees do these things.

(3) Eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

(4) Advance the rule of law (for non-lawyers).

I'm still going with not a union.

Your list seems to have changed. A more cynical poster than my good self might be inclined to think that you altered it, and indeed the ABA mission statement, to better fit your argument that it's not a union.

I would cordially suggest that if you have to malform both your own statement and that of the ABA to get your argument roughly into a shape that might work, then perhaps you're doing something wrong.

Or right, perhaps, as you're a scab lawyer.

Are you referring to the "from employers" part?

I suppose all of the following are also unions then: the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, local chambers of commerce, private consumer protection groups, and industry-specific groups.

Forms of unions, sure. Although I'd specify more groups of workers as unions more, say the ABA, which work toward improving working conditions of the workers in their profession.

I'm not sure where your hang-up is on this. Clearly the ABA is a union, and one that you've benefited from even while not being a member.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's compare my list to the ABA's list.

TGD's List:

(1) Help its members obtain better wages from employers.
(2) Help its members obtain better working conditions from employers.
(3) Help its members obtain better benefits from employers.

ABA's List:

(1) Provide benefits, programs, and services which promote members' professional growth and quality of life. Just fyi - these include things like saving 10% on your Mastercard bill, continuing legal education courses which cost upwards of $200, and providing a hotline for people contemplating suicide.

(2) Promote the highest quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct, and professionalism, and public service. They promote, but do not regulate, legislate, or otherwise contract with employers or attorneys on these things. The state licensing commitees do these things.

(3) Eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

(4) Advance the rule of law (for non-lawyers).

I'm still going with not a union.

Your list seems to have changed. A more cynical poster than my good self might be inclined to think that you altered it, and indeed the ABA mission statement, to better fit your argument that it's not a union.

I would cordially suggest that if you have to malform both your own statement and that of the ABA to get your argument roughly into a shape that might work, then perhaps you're doing something wrong.

Or right, perhaps, as you're a scab lawyer.

Are you referring to the "from employers" part?

I suppose all of the following are also unions then: the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, local chambers of commerce, private consumer protection groups, and industry-specific groups.

Forms of unions, sure. Although I'd specify more groups of workers as unions more, say the ABA, which work toward improving working conditions of the workers in their profession.

I'm not sure where your hang-up is on this. Clearly the ABA is a union, and one that you've benefited from even while not being a member.

Yeah, so it's not actually a union.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... wn_unions/

So the ABA is wondering what a lawyer's union would look like. Symm, maybe you can help them by sending them their mission statement.

[Symmetry]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/should_lawyers_form_their_own_unions/

So the ABA is wondering what a lawyer's union would look like. Symm, maybe you can help them by sending them their mission statement.

Might be a little redundant, doncha think?

But anyway, it's a comment thread question, not an article with any kind of thought behind it, from one of the ABA Journal editors. It's almost a shame that she's not a lawyer.

But hey- I guess that's what you're down to now.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/should_lawyers_form_their_own_unions/

So the ABA is wondering what a lawyer's union would look like. Symm, maybe you can help them by sending them their mission statement.

Might be a little redundant, doncha think?

But anyway, it's a comment thread question, not an article with any kind of thought behind it, from one of the ABA Journal editors. It's almost a shame that she's not a lawyer.

But hey- I guess that's what you're down to now.

What they teach you in law school is that you use as many different arguments as you can to convince the other side. They do not teach you how to deal with people who don't admit when they are wrong, except that there is usually an impartial arbiter. We don't have that here, but I feel pretty good that no one thinks the ABA is a union. Including you. You're just pretending that you think it's a union so that you can get some sort of weird satisfaction from besting me. And that doesn't really make sense Symm... because if you know that your argument is bullshit, how do you take any joy in pretending to win this argument?

[Symmetry]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/should_lawyers_form_their_own_unions/

So the ABA is wondering what a lawyer's union would look like. Symm, maybe you can help them by sending them their mission statement.

Might be a little redundant, doncha think?

But anyway, it's a comment thread question, not an article with any kind of thought behind it, from one of the ABA Journal editors. It's almost a shame that she's not a lawyer.

But hey- I guess that's what you're down to now.

What they teach you in law school is that you use as many different arguments as you can to convince the other side. They do not teach you how to deal with people who don't admit when they are wrong, except that there is usually an impartial arbiter. We don't have that here, but I feel pretty good that no one thinks the ABA is a union. Including you. You're just pretending that you think it's a union so that you can get some sort of weird satisfaction from besting me. And that doesn't really make sense Symm... because if you know that your argument is bullshit, how do you take any joy in pretending to win this argument?

Hmm, I remain unconvinced. I'm remarkably unconvinced that law school never taught you how to deal with an adversary who won't admit that they're wrong. I would have thought that'd be kind of key to being a lawyer. But anyway, your odd BS aside, I've shown that the ABA fulfills all of the criteria you set out for constituting a union.

Even your modified criteria fit the ABA as a union. You're down to a blog post as your evidence, and a pitiful plea to some non-existent jury. You have swagger TGD, I'll give you that.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/should_lawyers_form_their_own_unions/

So the ABA is wondering what a lawyer's union would look like. Symm, maybe you can help them by sending them their mission statement.

Might be a little redundant, doncha think?

But anyway, it's a comment thread question, not an article with any kind of thought behind it, from one of the ABA Journal editors. It's almost a shame that she's not a lawyer.

But hey- I guess that's what you're down to now.

What they teach you in law school is that you use as many different arguments as you can to convince the other side. They do not teach you how to deal with people who don't admit when they are wrong, except that there is usually an impartial arbiter. We don't have that here, but I feel pretty good that no one thinks the ABA is a union. Including you. You're just pretending that you think it's a union so that you can get some sort of weird satisfaction from besting me. And that doesn't really make sense Symm... because if you know that your argument is bullshit, how do you take any joy in pretending to win this argument?

Hmm, I remain unconvinced. I'm remarkably unconvinced that law school never taught you how to deal with an adversary who won't admit that they're wrong. I would have thought that'd be kind of key to being a lawyer. But anyway, your odd BS aside, I've shown that the ABA fulfills all of the criteria you set out for constituting a union.

Even your modified criteria fit the ABA as a union. You're down to a blog post as your evidence, and a pitiful plea to some non-existent jury. You have swagger TGD, I'll give you that.

Unfortunately, you haven't shown that. Sorry little buddy.