3 ms·
"I agree. Collective bargaining for public workers is overall absurd, IMHO." What's absurd is that there is some special category of speech called "collective
by rsync 11y ago
"I agree. Collective bargaining for public workers is overall absurd, IMHO."
What's absurd is that there is some special category of speech called "collective bargaining" and that we treat labor/union/striking speech as somehow different than other speech.
I have no idea what collective bargaining is - it just looks like speech to me. I have no idea what a strike is - it just looks like free assembly to me.
Why should these be protected or restricted ?
- snowwrestler 11y agoThe point of contention is that in some jurisdictions the law forces every covered public sector employee to pay into the union that negotiated the agreement--whether that employee wants to or not. The intention of this rule is to prevent "free riders"--employees who benefit from the union-negotiated agreement, but don't contribute anything to ensure its success. Voluntary unions (no forced contributions) are legal basically everywhere, as you think they would be. But they are obviously less powerful because they have fewer resources, and can't claim that they represent all the workers.