4 ms·

People should be allowed to associate with any clubs, partnerships, unions, corporations or organizations that they want to and the other party is agreeable. I

People should be allowed to associate with any clubs, partnerships, unions, corporations or organizations that they want to and the other party is agreeable. If you don't want to join, then don't join. If you don't want to do business with a company or a union, then don't do business with them. There is no need for the government to massively interfere unless there is a real physical danger to citizens.

TallGuyShort 11y ago
But if this is collective bargaining involving tax money and people who enforce laws with weapons then this is potentially affecting people who can't choose whether or not they like what's happening. I'm not saying public employees should have no privacy - but this is certainly not a situation where everyone can just do what they want and be left alone. Collective bargaining with the government should be transparent. That doesn't necessarily justify leaking what might contain people's personal information without their consent, but just a point that needs remain in the discussion. Personally, I'm not a fan of the Fraternal Order of Police. We used to support them financially but they were extremely rude and harassed us when we had to step down our donations a bit. There were many people who called us who certainly did not have service to the public as their priority. I don't know much of the context of the dump nor have I viewed it myself, but I'm inclined to be suspicious of them.
qrendel 11y ago
In some cases you're required to pay union dues regardless of whether you join or not. This is apparently the case for teacher's unions in 22 states + DC.[1] So "don't do business with them" isn't even always an option. [1] http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/teachers.php http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/teachers.php
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Don't want a closed shop? Don't sign a contract that closes the shop. Lots of businesses sign sole source contracts.
- dalke 11y ago
  Those are agency fees, not union dues. Quoting from the link you gave, "This fee costs the same as union dues, minus the cost of the union’s direct political giving". Edit: Downvotes for making a minor vocabulary correction? Imagine what would happen if I had pointed out that tomato is botanically a fruit, even if it is the state vegetable of New Jersey. (And yes, this topic made it to the Supreme Court in Nix v. Hedden.)
zo1 11y ago
>"There is no need for the government to massively interfere unless there is a real physical danger to citizens." Generally, I'd agree with you. Individuals should be allowed to associate with whoever they wish. Unfortunately, when it comes to unions, they're most often awarded special privileges by government. At the very least, they make large-scale organized strikes more likely to happen. And those strikes are protected, giving the unions power to wield over business, and to "convince" people to join.

TallGuyShort 11y ago

But if this is collective bargaining involving tax money and people who enforce laws with weapons then this is potentially affecting people who can't choose whether or not they like what's happening. I'm not saying public employees should have no privacy - but this is certainly not a situation where everyone can just do what they want and be left alone. Collective bargaining with the government should be transparent. That doesn't necessarily justify leaking what might contain people's personal information without their consent, but just a point that needs remain in the discussion. Personally, I'm not a fan of the Fraternal Order of Police. We used to support them financially but they were extremely rude and harassed us when we had to step down our donations a bit. There were many people who called us who certainly did not have service to the public as their priority. I don't know much of the context of the dump nor have I viewed it myself, but I'm inclined to be suspicious of them.

qrendel 11y ago

In some cases you're required to pay union dues regardless of whether you join or not. This is apparently the case for teacher's unions in 22 states + DC.[1] So "don't do business with them" isn't even always an option. [1] http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/teachers.php http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/teachers.php

tosseraccount 11y ago
Don't want a closed shop? Don't sign a contract that closes the shop. Lots of businesses sign sole source contracts.
dalke 11y ago
Those are agency fees, not union dues. Quoting from the link you gave, "This fee costs the same as union dues, minus the cost of the union’s direct political giving". Edit: Downvotes for making a minor vocabulary correction? Imagine what would happen if I had pointed out that tomato is botanically a fruit, even if it is the state vegetable of New Jersey. (And yes, this topic made it to the Supreme Court in Nix v. Hedden.)

zo1 11y ago

>"There is no need for the government to massively interfere unless there is a real physical danger to citizens." Generally, I'd agree with you. Individuals should be allowed to associate with whoever they wish. Unfortunately, when it comes to unions, they're most often awarded special privileges by government. At the very least, they make large-scale organized strikes more likely to happen. And those strikes are protected, giving the unions power to wield over business, and to "convince" people to join.