It is not charity. It is, however, fairly basic to state that, especially after this spectacular bust, were I not employing these people, they would not be employed. No one forces these men to work for me, no one forces me to hire them. The arrangement has been reached because it is mutually beneficial. My business could not exist without their labor (as it is impossible for me to do all aspects of my business alone), but so too would they not be able to live without receiving payment for their labor.
And I should clarify further, lest the fire you breathe consume you entirely - they do not "produce" anything, strictly speaking. They move product from ship to shore, and vice versa. What, exactly, is there for your precious union to manage? If they do not like the amount of reimbursement I and my company give them for their labor, they are more than welcome to seek out better wages, or organize in the same manner that the New York longshoremen did. But to insinuate that I am some monster seeking to keep my employees subsistent and subservient is nothing short of deceptive.
Mr. Weaver, my company is privately-held. There is no board for employees' representatives to sit on. Their wages are themselves already profit-sharing. I pay above the industry average precisely because I was once a worker. But, again: my company is no charity. Nor should it be. Nor will it ever be. It is a company, run for profit.
