Along with Little Green Men, The Bar Association has always been one of my favourite Deep Space Nine Ferengi episodes. My all time favourite Ferengi episode is The Battle. I always loved how Rom and the rest of Quark’s workers stood up in unison against the unfairness of their employment contracts, terms and working conditions. In particular how they stood up to liquidator Brunt and the Ferengi Commerce Commission. It was funny when Rom quoted Karl Marx and said “Workers of the World, UNITE!”. Ultimately, this all leads to Rom deciding to take a career change and follow his dream in becoming a station technician. If Rom had never become a technician then the Dominion would not have been held back during the Dominion War by the self replicating cloaking minefield which he invented. It was also good to learn more back story about Chief O’Brien, whose ancestor Sean O’Brien was an inspirational union leader. It was a shame that Worf, O’Brien and Bashir had a fight as a result of their differences in opinion about the union and the closure of Quark’s bar, but this was a momentary blip in their developing friendship which is ironed out over subsequent episodes. Worf felt uncomfortable being redeployed to Deep Space Nine and was obviously getting frustrated at being stationed there… he must have developed ‘cabin fever’ whilst sleeping in that small Defiant bunk bed. I think that a good moral to take away from this episode is that it is *good* to be in a union if one is available to you. I am in one, are you?
Nope as confirmation that you are not in a union? Nope as your opinion that they are not good, or nope to both options? What did you think of the episode itself?
Correct. I wouldn't go that far. It's just that nobody at my store (myself included) particularly wants or needs one. As for the episode itself? Meh.
I got the feeling that Miles made up Sean O'Brien out of whole cloth just to inspire Rom. During my working career my position went from unrepresented to unionized. Unionized was definitely better. Not hugely different, except that we never went six years (!) without a cost of living increase anymore, at a time when prevailing wages for our jobs were increasing by 5-10% per year.
But it works in the U.K, look: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63871766 I don’t think that Rom could have organised industrial action on this scale on Deep Space Nine though. But after becoming Grand Nagus who knows what his character achieved in the future of Star Trek? It is a sure thing that Grand Nagus Rom became the opposite of previous Nagi and people of power such as Liquidator Brunt and the FCA, with Rom championing galactic employment rights instead of working against the Ferengi people as was typical of this species in the past. Rom could now be the leader of a new and powerful Ferengi (Trade) Union by the time of the 25th century, all inspired by the Irish man ‘Sean’ O’Brien. Sometimes the Federation might ‘recruit’ the Nagus to help out in trade negotiations and disputes.
As a union worker, I like unions just fine. Especially since I know what things were like for workers before they were a regular thing. Back breaking hours, ludicrous wages, lethal working conditions, and rampant child labor... not good. Still, I found it rather ridiculous that the Ferengi solution for creating a union was to beat up the employer. If that's how they deal with unions, it's amazing the whole planet hasn't been taken over by them!
You can thank nearly a century of promulgated sentiments (if not outright propaganda) declaring them to be "commy-nist" and "soeshull-ist".
There was also the fact that they practically ruined the American car industry in the 1970's. US-made cars had a reputation for being overpriced and unreliable, thanks largely to the UAW's policies at the time. One of Honda's greatest coups was that they were able to set up shop in the US, pay competitive wages, but keep the UAW out.
Concerning criticism, police unions are another matter altogether; any organization that protects the institution of police brutality (particularly towards certain ethnic groups) is a-okay.
It may be just a perception from pop culture but it seems like unions are wider spread in the US than the UK - regardless of comfort with it. In the UK, unionisation is collapsing - 23% now down from 33% in 1995 for example. I used to be rather anti union when younger but as I gotten older and wiser I have seen more and more often how important it is for people to have support and representation rather than have a government (and a really scummy one at that these days) run roughshod over them
To an extent it is evidence of unions working - they are there to protect their members. The issue is that those members are presumed to be upstanding good people and it turns out in both UK and US that there are major issues with the police. We had similar issues with the miner's union in the 70s and 80s - it was felt my many that they exercised too much control over things and that there was corruption at the top with leaders in it for themselves. Overall though, they do more good than harm
The more power a government has, the worse its people will suffer. And you can't have too many checks and balances, because they do fail. For example, the 10th Amendment, designed to keep the Federal government's nose out of affairs that don't concern it, quietly fell by the wayside back in the '30's. Yes. Read stories about factories back in the industrial age. They needed unions badly! But they should also protect the integrity of police as a whole.
In his book "The Rifle", Gary Paulsen stipulated that big government was not the enemy of the people because it was made out of people. As someone who understands human nature, I say that's why big government is the enemy of the people. If unionization (within reason) can reduce or counteract excessive government control, I'm all for it.
You and I will differ to an extent due in part to how different the UK is to the US but I'm also a strong advocate for govt regulation of certain things (ensuring universal healthcare, regulation of banks and corporations etc) but I do think the UK needs devolution at a minimum to give the constituent parts their control back The problem with your third part is ideological - they either don't see some of the failings that they protect as being failings or they see burying issues as protecting the image and, therefore, the integrity of the institution
I used to think politicians in the UK, even if I disagreed with them, felt they were doing the best for the most and it was simply a difference of view - I can't say that about many of the current Tory govt If you gave me competent Tories then I might not like how they did it but I'd respect that they are trying to improve for all - equally under Corbyn I didn't like how Labour did things but I knew they came from a good place and so it was simply an ideology issue rather than them being "wrong" or "evil"