4 ms·

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 v

by 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.
  - randomdata 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. But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was. > That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you. Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary. > I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore. Deep down, the topic isn't really about unions at all, so I'm not even sure what difference it makes? Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union, as I figured some overly emotional people would take the opening the wrong way (and still did anyway). I am now left wondering if you actually read the comment at all? > to say that unions are inherently bad I don't quite understand where you are even going here? Suppose we did agree on what free and fair mean. Then what? All we can conclude is that unions take away freedoms and fairness. How do you take that and turn it into unions being bad? I don't see the leap you are making here.
    - jahaja 10y ago
      > Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary. Answering this would inevitably leads us down a never ending philosophical discussion ("What is freedom? Is it an act of freedom to fire someone if it's made possible by an institution based on servitude?") that's subjective anyway. > Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false. > I don't quite understand where you are even going here? I made a punt based on previous experiences with people discussing in a pseudo-philosophical manner. My bad.

by jahaja 10y ago

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.
- randomdata 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. But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was. > That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you. Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary. > I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore. Deep down, the topic isn't really about unions at all, so I'm not even sure what difference it makes? Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union, as I figured some overly emotional people would take the opening the wrong way (and still did anyway). I am now left wondering if you actually read the comment at all? > to say that unions are inherently bad I don't quite understand where you are even going here? Suppose we did agree on what free and fair mean. Then what? All we can conclude is that unions take away freedoms and fairness. How do you take that and turn it into unions being bad? I don't see the leap you are making here.
  - jahaja 10y ago
    > Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary. Answering this would inevitably leads us down a never ending philosophical discussion ("What is freedom? Is it an act of freedom to fire someone if it's made possible by an institution based on servitude?") that's subjective anyway. > Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false. > I don't quite understand where you are even going here? I made a punt based on previous experiences with people discussing in a pseudo-philosophical manner. My bad.