3 ms·

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 joi

by 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.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false. Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. But within the context of my position that has held that a fair market is not desirable for employees, that would tell you that the first paragraph is very much pro-labour. Fair is clearly bad. What do you hope to take away from this discussion? You originally asked why Americans see unions as having negative outcomes. How are these talking points codifying an answer to that question in your mind?
    - jahaja 10y ago
      > Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I'm not saying that it's objective. My definition, whatever that may be formalized to, may well be an anti-business definition by your standards. > What do you hope to take away from this discussion? At this point I'm just trying to answer you. Maybe I'll get more replies to my question, albeit unlikely at this point.
      - randomdata 10y ago
        > I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. "Fair market value (FMV) is, in its simplest expression, the price that a person reasonable interested in buying a given asset would pay to a person reasonably interested in selling it for the purchase of the asset or asset would fetch in the marketplace. To establish FMV, it must be assumed that prospective buyers and sellers are reasonably knowledgeable about the asset, that they are behaving in their own best interests, that they are free of undue pressure to trade and that a reasonable time period is given for completing the transaction." This point is interesting: "free of undue pressure to trade". If there is no undue pressure from a union, why are places like Walmart so afraid of them? No pressure. > At this point I'm just trying to answer you. But what do you take away from it?

by jahaja 10y ago

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.
- randomdata 10y ago
  > You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false. Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. But within the context of my position that has held that a fair market is not desirable for employees, that would tell you that the first paragraph is very much pro-labour. Fair is clearly bad. What do you hope to take away from this discussion? You originally asked why Americans see unions as having negative outcomes. How are these talking points codifying an answer to that question in your mind?
  - jahaja 10y ago
    > Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I'm not saying that it's objective. My definition, whatever that may be formalized to, may well be an anti-business definition by your standards. > What do you hope to take away from this discussion? At this point I'm just trying to answer you. Maybe I'll get more replies to my question, albeit unlikely at this point.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      > I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics. "Fair market value (FMV) is, in its simplest expression, the price that a person reasonable interested in buying a given asset would pay to a person reasonably interested in selling it for the purchase of the asset or asset would fetch in the marketplace. To establish FMV, it must be assumed that prospective buyers and sellers are reasonably knowledgeable about the asset, that they are behaving in their own best interests, that they are free of undue pressure to trade and that a reasonable time period is given for completing the transaction." This point is interesting: "free of undue pressure to trade". If there is no undue pressure from a union, why are places like Walmart so afraid of them? No pressure. > At this point I'm just trying to answer you. But what do you take away from it?