4 ms·
>This is an incredibly arrogant argument for a union to be making. If a union gains membership by forcing employees to be union members Workers vote to decide
by crdoconnor 11y ago
>This is an incredibly arrogant argument for a union to be making. If a union gains membership by forcing employees to be union members
Workers vote to decide on whether to unionize. If you don't like the outcome of the vote, you can quit and go work for a non-union company.
>its claim to be legitimately representing employees becomes very weak, IMO.
You must hate democracy.
>Closed shop tactics are ways for unions to gain power, often at the expense of labour
No, closed shop tactics are a way for unions to gain power so that they can better represent labor. It prevents management from using divide and conquer against the workforce (their primary strategy).
>These things collapsed all over the world for a reason.
Because there has been a vicious campaign against them for decades. This is why wages are stagnant and profits are skyrocketing and the 0.01% own all the wealth.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoArrogance, again. Lack of unions is NOT the reason for the 1% - its banking/investment regulation. What we do at the grass-roots level has become profoundly irrelevant to those in positions of power. And there's a word for that union 'democracy' you are so proud of - its called tyranny of the majority. Its using the trappings of democracy to hijack everybody's decisions about work.
- kalkin 11y agoDo you think there is no relationship between the state of regulation of banking (which I'd argue is less central to the policy story than tax rates but that's a side note) and the state of organized working-class power? How do you think those regulations get made?
- mempko 11y agoThe stats show the opposite. As unions in the US have been dismantled over the last 40 years, inequality increased dramatically.
- henshao 11y agocorrelation doesn't imply causation.