Watching reports about Steven Colbert testifying before Congress about illegal immigrants at hearings ultimately sponsored by the United Farm Workers made me wonder about something that left me puzzled for some time. What kind of union takes care of its workers by encouraging workers who would undercut the employability of its members? What could they possibly think would happen to their current workers by encouraging dilution of the work force? The argument they make is that then all the workers will be union and the wage will not be undercut; but this benefits only the union coffers and not the individual worker - neither the existing member nor the new one. Typically, work is fairly divided with each getting a supposedly equal share. (I know this one having suffered through it doing union work in the 70's and 80's. We spent a lot of time is US District Court) But what that really means is that the worker makes less than they would have without the union. But the union officers ... they do well.
Similarly what was the AARP thinking when they pushed a medical plan that takes from Medicare to give to people of an age when they should be working and able to pay their own way. Shooting their members in the foot they are.