What is "social justice"?

[vern_humphrey]

Add “I got mine!” to that and that’s pretty much what I mean.

And I would like to say for the record, the BEST anti-poverty program around is a good union job with benefits and a pension plan; things under attack by a certain group of politicians representing corporations.

There’s a fine example of “I got mine.” The tiny minority of union workers get theirs, and everyone else pays inflated prices for the goods they produce. And of course the union bosses become multi-millionaires.

The unionized industries are being run into the ground – Winchester just ceased production of their most popular rifles because the union contract forced them to produce them under union labor. They’ll restart production at a non-union location after the contract expires.

The Big Three in the automotive industry are barely keeping afloat, while non-unionized brands in southern states are running away with the business.

But the Rust Belt should stay unionized – more jobs will migrate down here and we will prosper.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There’s a fine example of “I got mine.” The tiny minority of union workers get theirs, and everyone else pays inflated prices for the goods they produce. And of course the union bosses become multi-millionaires.

The unionized industries are being run into the ground – Wichester just ceased production of their most popular rifles because the union contract forced them to produce them under union labor. The Big Three in the automotive industry are barely keeping afloat, while non-unionized brands in southern states are running away with the business.

But the Rust Belt should stay unionized – more jobs will migrate down here and we will prosper.

When a greater portion of the workforce is unionized, everyone benefits. Unions have been under attack since the 1940’s when Taft-Hartley was passed by a Republican congress (Republicans have always been pro-corporate).

 

[vern_humphrey]

When a greater portion of the workforce is unionized, everyone benefits.

And there’s such a thing as a perpetual motion machine, too.

Unions have been under attack since the 1940’s when Taft-Hartley was passed by a Republican congress (Republicans have always been pro-corporate).

Unions are no different from other kinds of monopoly, and just as dangerous to the economy.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

And there’s such a thing as a perpetual motion machine, too.

Unions are no different from other kinds of monopoly, and just as dangerous to the economy.

When taken to an extreme (which rarely happens). Yet they are why we have 8hr days, 40hr weeks, breaks, meal breaks, worker safety laws, etc… Without that pure capitalism leads us back to Chinese-like worker conditions (though it also happens with Hispanics in US farm fields, undocumented or not they need some level of human respect on the job).

 

[vern_humphrey]

When taken to an extreme (which rarely happens).

Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

Yet they are why we have 8hr days, 40hr weeks, breaks, meal breaks, worker safety laws, etc… Without that pure capitalism leads us back to Chinese-like worker conditions (though it also happens with Hispanics in US farm fields, undocumented or not they need some level of human respect on the job).

No, they are not – the unions did none of this, albeit they supported some of it.

These things came about because more efficient work permitted it, not because the unions “forced” them on business.

 

[Ender]

Unions are not really the topic here but they may serve as a good example of what “social justice” has come to mean. They are a specific solution created to fill a perceived need, but - and this is really the point - no claim can be made that unions are a necessary aspect of social justice. The misperception is to insist that social justice means adopting a particular solution to a societal problem. The reason so many (myself included) automatically raise shields when this phrase is used is because it has been hijacked to support specific solutions that we oppose. Somehow it is assumed that because one thinks unions cause more problems than they cure means that person isn’t interested in social justice or helping the less well off.

Given the extent to which the social justice ministries in the Church are controlled by individuals and groups pushing for specific political solutions it should be unsurprising that those of us who believe different solutions would be more effective are dismissive of “social justice” claims. If “social justice” was a brand name it would be in the same category as CBS and The New York Times.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unions are not really the topic here but they may serve as a good example of what “social justice” has come to mean. They are a specific solution created to fill a perceived need, but - and this is really the point - no claim can be made that unions are a necessary aspect of social justice. The misperception is to insist that social justice means adopting a particular solution to a societal problem. The reason so many (myself included) automatically raise shields when this phrase is used is because it has been hijacked to support specific solutions that we oppose. Somehow it is assumed that because one thinks unions cause more problems than they cure means that person isn’t interested in social justice or helping the less well off.

Given the extent to which the social justice ministries in the Church are controlled by individuals and groups pushing for specific political solutions it should be unsurprising that those of us who believe different solutions would be more effective are dismissive of “social justice” claims. If “social justice” was a brand name it would be in the same category as CBS and The New York Times.

Ender

You are exactly right – “Social Justice” to many has little to do with either society or justice, and everything to do with supporting the political fad de jour.

To actually help people is meaningless – indeed, to support programs that hurt the poor is acceptable. As long as they are the “right” programs.

 

[fix]

Unions are not really the topic here but they may serve as a good example of what “social justice” has come to mean. They are a specific solution created to fill a perceived need, but - and this is really the point - no claim can be made that unions are a necessary aspect of social justice. The misperception is to insist that social justice means adopting a particular solution to a societal problem. The reason so many (myself included) automatically raise shields when this phrase is used is because it has been hijacked to support specific solutions that we oppose. Somehow it is assumed that because one thinks unions cause more problems than they cure means that person isn’t interested in social justice or helping the less well off.

Given the extent to which the social justice ministries in the Church are controlled by individuals and groups pushing for specific political solutions it should be unsurprising that those of us who believe different solutions would be more effective are dismissive of “social justice” claims. If “social justice” was a brand name it would be in the same category as CBS and The New York Times.

Ender

Great job. The words Social Justice have been hijacked.

 

[johnnycatholic]

I almost like “social action” better because it hasn’t been hijacked by those with marxist and immoral agendas. Kind of like our country got into trouble when we stopped with rights and dignity given to us by our Creator and started with “civil rights” given to us by the government. Murder and homosexual acts become civil rights if enough people vote it to be true. People argue that women need to be able to abort babies in order to be “equal” to men, who are unburdened with pregnancies, and call it social justice. I am for Christian treatment of all and meeting the needs of the truly needy, but “social justice” just raises a red flag every time I see the word. It’s like hearing a mormon say trinity.