4 ms·
Why's it more ridiculous than other restrictions and requirements for employment? Or, on the political spending issue, than what companies and trade organizatio
by 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 agoAgain, 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 agoWhy's it unacceptable?