3 ms·

> Right-to-work laws, for example, are 100% about neutering unions, No, they're not. The idea that you should have to join an outside organization to work for

> Right-to-work laws, for example, are 100% about neutering unions, No, they're not. The idea that you should have to join an outside organization to work for a government agency is ridiculous. Doubly so when those same groups spend extremely heavily on politics.

dragonwriter 9y ago
You just provided a (good or not is another question) justification for neutering unions, not an argument supporting the position that right-to-left laws aren't about neutering unions.
- strictnein 9y ago
  I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. My point is that you should be able to work for a government agency without joining a union. That is a reason for right-to-work laws that has nothing to do with neutering unions. If unions can't survive without people being legally obligated to join them that is on them and they should adapt to meet that reality.
  - ashark 9y ago
    > I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. You dodged the point above, but the governmental agencies themselves are politically active. So are very nearly all employers. [EDIT] my point being, why is aiding one politically-active organization (your employer) as a requirement for employment entirely fine, but being required to aid two is some abridgment of liberty? It's not like it's sprung on you after the fact. It's exactly as much a choice as aiding your employer's political agenda (i.e. you can not work there).
ashark 9y ago
Why's it more ridiculous than other restrictions and requirements for employment? Or, on the political spending issue, than what companies and trade organizations spend on the same (though usually to different ends)? Hell, even governments and governmental agencies participate in lobbying (of larger/parent governments or agencies), if we're restricting it to that in order to have a potential conflict-of-interest on the political lobbying front for the union. Should their employees be able to opt out of that and receive higher pay in return? To head off "if you don't like the political spending of your employer then you can just quit"—right, and you can quit working at a place with a union membership requirement if you don't like the union's political spending. "But that's impractical because almost all the unions spend in ways I don't like". Oh, I know. Guess how lots of people feel about the political spending of almost all employers/companies? Good for the goose, good for the gander.
- strictnein 9y ago
  Again, why is required paid membership to a non-governmental group an acceptable requirement for employment by the government? It's a very, very simple question. I don't care what trade groups or companies do.
  - ashark 9y ago
    Why's it unacceptable?

dragonwriter 9y ago

You just provided a (good or not is another question) justification for neutering unions, not an argument supporting the position that right-to-left laws aren't about neutering unions.

strictnein 9y ago
I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. My point is that you should be able to work for a government agency without joining a union. That is a reason for right-to-work laws that has nothing to do with neutering unions. If unions can't survive without people being legally obligated to join them that is on them and they should adapt to meet that reality.
- ashark 9y ago
  > I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. You dodged the point above, but the governmental agencies themselves are politically active. So are very nearly all employers. [EDIT] my point being, why is aiding one politically-active organization (your employer) as a requirement for employment entirely fine, but being required to aid two is some abridgment of liberty? It's not like it's sprung on you after the fact. It's exactly as much a choice as aiding your employer's political agenda (i.e. you can not work there).

ashark 9y ago

Why's it more ridiculous than other restrictions and requirements for employment? Or, on the political spending issue, than what companies and trade organizations spend on the same (though usually to different ends)? Hell, even governments and governmental agencies participate in lobbying (of larger/parent governments or agencies), if we're restricting it to that in order to have a potential conflict-of-interest on the political lobbying front for the union. Should their employees be able to opt out of that and receive higher pay in return? To head off "if you don't like the political spending of your employer then you can just quit"—right, and you can quit working at a place with a union membership requirement if you don't like the union's political spending. "But that's impractical because almost all the unions spend in ways I don't like". Oh, I know. Guess how lots of people feel about the political spending of almost all employers/companies? Good for the goose, good for the gander.

strictnein 9y ago
Again, why is required paid membership to a non-governmental group an acceptable requirement for employment by the government? It's a very, very simple question. I don't care what trade groups or companies do.
- ashark 9y ago
  Why's it unacceptable?