Why does no one discuss the "union" issue head on?---- as fallout from transitions between two different forms of governing and economy?
In the "industrial" age, there were greedy capitalists who went on a free-for-all with money, and starved many in various forms of sweat shops, which facilitated a climate in which "union" could take hold. In the NATIONAL climate (a homongeous population and borders which is a "nation" by definition), the "fight" was over PROFITS from the companies and the attempt for the non-owners of the "means of production" (machines, factory land and facilities, etc.) to get a living wage out of whatever the companies were holding back (allocating to "profit" and "re-investment" and their own salaries).
IN a Warfare-Welfare State and attached Statist situation (where the role of government is to toss coins back to the public from what it collects from the handful of Creative Worker Class---- unions can't exist (not in the real sense of fighting capital for share in profit).
The object of the money source is NOT capitalists or producers BUT ANY creative worker, any wealth producer at all, (the "american people," the "taxpayer.")
Often these are more generational Americans BECAUSE they existed under the constitutional republic (that denied a Warfare-welfare state) and they are still trying to "make" (create) money (since it's their culture to do so.)
That seems why the "American people" (like on the news) are called also "the taxPAYERS."
The public unions are not taxpayers. They are paid like the bureaucrats by taxes.
Unions don't really exist in WELFARE-WARFARE STATES.
that they are being called this is a misnomer.
Why do the protesters allow themselves to be labeled this way?
What is the appropriate name for PEOPLE IMPLORING BUREAUCRATIC OFFICIALS for money?
(Union is a term for a very specific role under capitalism, which is not the economic system)
by definition, "tax-paid people" cannot really be in a "union," not by definition (as the definition relates to economy, anyway).