[LindeBuzoGray]

So the union and company came to a legal agreement about work and your father chose to do work breaking that agreement.

What would happen if I began installing or moving pipes at my company that management and ownership told me not to? A "gang" of security guards or policemen would visit violence on me to stop.

You are aghast at the people actually doing the work and creating the wealth enforcing their rights, but make no mention of the heirs who own Siemens and their "gangs" working to expropriate surplus labor time and profit.

[throwawa14223]

> So the union and company came to a legal agreement about work and your father chose to do work breaking that agreement.

Adding value deserves to be met with threats. This is a stunning argument against unions you're making.

[LindeBuzoGray]

If I add value which management does not approve, then I am met by threats on their end. That is a stunning argument against management.

The workers create all the wealth and do all the work. The heirs who own the controlling stake in a big company like Siemens do not work, but expropriate surplus labor time doing work.

You have the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth on one end, and the heirs who parasitically expropriate the worker's surplus time on the other. It's obvious to those of us who work who the "argument" is against.

[hackeraccount]

If you add value and management threatens you it's both wrong and a mistake on their part - in that it goes against managements interest.

If the Union does the same thing it's wrong - because threatening people is wrong - but not actually against their interests because as you say a Union isn't interested in the company doing well. All the company does is exploit them and the customers. The Union just wants to make sure they get a pound of flesh out of the company (and presumably the customers too).