3 ms·
No, you're missing the point. The issue is individual freedoms. You're talking about the benefits of collective bargaining and calling that freedom. It is in no
by fixxer 10y ago
No, you're missing the point. The issue is individual freedoms. You're talking about the benefits of collective bargaining and calling that freedom. It is in no way the same thing.
I think the free rider problem you allude to is a result of union membership providing diminishing value.
But again, the only part I really have an issue with are public sector.
PS. You're not wrong about taxes, but let's not use debating fallacies please. We're talking about unions.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago>I think the free rider problem you allude to is a result of union membership providing diminishing value. No, free riders are a problem regardless of membership value. You say that you are for unions but you are against the only thing that allows unions to exist.
- fixxer 10y agoI said I'm not against them. I never said I was for them either.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y agoFair enough but my point is that in practical terms you are against them.
- fixxer 10y agoIn practical terms, unions can't survive without destroying individual freedom. So they are bad.
- dannypgh 10y agoThe benefits of collective bargaining stem from the individual's freedom to withhold their labor. Or are you arguing it's somehow unjust for people to refuse to work with non-union coworkers?
- fixxer 10y agoCompelling an individual to support a group runs against the concept of individual freedom. I support the right to form a union and the right to not join one. I do not support the right to require an individual to join. I support the individual. Pretty simple.