8 ms·

I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify? Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the w

by jahaja 10y ago

I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify? Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact? Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
randomdata 10y ago
Which part of the original comment did you not understand? Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part. Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.
- jahaja 10y ago
  Do not assume I agree with you because I did not respond to something. Especially when I wrote that I did not understand your answer fully. You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. And that's excluding the factor of solidarity with your fellow workers. Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
  - judahmeek 10y ago
    randomdata basically pointed out that freedom isn't always in a person's best interests. The two of you are certainly using different definitions of fairness as well. randomdata's definition seems to have more to do with lack of third party involvement/regulation of the negotiation while you focus on the exchange of time & effort vs financial compensation.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve. When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay, willing to take greater risks in dangerous jobs, and so on. Again, a union takes away their freedom to do those things, and takes away the fairness that treats everyone in the same way, so that everyone else doesn't feel like they also have to do those things. > Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live. There is another freedom lost. Do you still not see how freedom is a bad thing here? Surely you agree that not being able to fire people for being in a union is a good thing, even though it comes at the cost of less freedom? > I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. Possibly. Are you an American by chance? It get the impression they place such high value on freedom and fairness that anything else they like must also be free and fair, without even taking the time to think about what that actually means. I see several comments here where people are getting upset at the idea that unions aren't free or fair, even though there is no reason to be. It is perfectly okay to not always be completely free or fair.
    - jahaja 10y ago
      You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible. I've already explained that freedom to join a union is as much a freedom for me as to not do it. It's just a matter of tactics. Also regarding freedom of firing an employee for joining a union. That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you. I'm not from the states. I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore. Or if you are just trying to get to an objective definition of freedom and fairness that you can build upon to say that unions are inherently bad in some right-libertarian philosophical way.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  > A union cannot function when there is competition. The competition is individuals sourced through a variety of means or other unions. Typically unions provide a degree value over other options to both parties, hence why you join one as a worker and you sign contracts with one as an employer. Unions exist in the same market as the rest of us and must compete as well. > The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. And break a contract they freely chose to sign with a union?

by jahaja 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

randomdata 10y ago

Which part of the original comment did you not understand? Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part. Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.

jahaja 10y ago
Do not assume I agree with you because I did not respond to something. Especially when I wrote that I did not understand your answer fully. You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. And that's excluding the factor of solidarity with your fellow workers. Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
- judahmeek 10y ago
  randomdata basically pointed out that freedom isn't always in a person's best interests. The two of you are certainly using different definitions of fairness as well. randomdata's definition seems to have more to do with lack of third party involvement/regulation of the negotiation while you focus on the exchange of time & effort vs financial compensation.
- randomdata 10y ago
  > For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve. When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay, willing to take greater risks in dangerous jobs, and so on. Again, a union takes away their freedom to do those things, and takes away the fairness that treats everyone in the same way, so that everyone else doesn't feel like they also have to do those things. > Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live. There is another freedom lost. Do you still not see how freedom is a bad thing here? Surely you agree that not being able to fire people for being in a union is a good thing, even though it comes at the cost of less freedom? > I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. Possibly. Are you an American by chance? It get the impression they place such high value on freedom and fairness that anything else they like must also be free and fair, without even taking the time to think about what that actually means. I see several comments here where people are getting upset at the idea that unions aren't free or fair, even though there is no reason to be. It is perfectly okay to not always be completely free or fair.
  - jahaja 10y ago
    You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible. I've already explained that freedom to join a union is as much a freedom for me as to not do it. It's just a matter of tactics. Also regarding freedom of firing an employee for joining a union. That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you. I'm not from the states. I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore. Or if you are just trying to get to an objective definition of freedom and fairness that you can build upon to say that unions are inherently bad in some right-libertarian philosophical way.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
> A union cannot function when there is competition. The competition is individuals sourced through a variety of means or other unions. Typically unions provide a degree value over other options to both parties, hence why you join one as a worker and you sign contracts with one as an employer. Unions exist in the same market as the rest of us and must compete as well. > The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. And break a contract they freely chose to sign with a union?