5 ms·

Collective bargaining is never mandatory on the employee side. The employee is not forced to work for a particular collective. The employer on the otherhand is

Collective bargaining is never mandatory on the employee side. The employee is not forced to work for a particular collective. The employer on the otherhand is forced, by law, to only hire people who are part of some government-recognized collective, known as a bargaining unit. In other words, employees can monopolize the employer's hiring options, using anti-free-market laws inspired by the 'labour' movement and socialism.

mikeash 9y ago
Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particular union, they have to find a different place to work. Why is the former reasonable but not the latter? If an employer really wants to hire non-union labor, they can leave their company and join a different one that doesn't have a union. You're playing an interesting semantic trick here where you use "employee" to refer to the individual, but "employer" to refer to the company. You thereby paint the asymmetry as unfair, when in fact there's no expectation that they should be the same. Let's compare individuals to individuals (laborers to management, say) and groups to groups (companies to unions). Why do the arguments against unions not also apply to companies? Give me something where if I replace "union" with "company" the result isn't an equally compelling argument against not letting employers organize collectively.
- altstar 9y ago
  The relationship between you as an employee and employer is totally different than you and a (potential) union. The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions. You are absolutely making no sense at all.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions That's like saying that the role of elected officials is to represent their constituents and serve their interests, treating them all with full equality under the law. It's a nice statement, but it's completely idealistic and doesn't accurately describe what actually happens in practice.
    - testrun 9y ago
      wtf? You work for a salary and you join a union if you want better working conditions and believe that is the only way to get it. This is not rocket science. What does politics have to do with it?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the company is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want. As an employer, the company is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the union is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want. I am not saying that an employee has the same relationship with their union and their company. I'm saying that when you break it down into employee/employer and company/union, it becomes fairly symmetrical. Look at the individuals on both sides, and then at the organizations on both sides. If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so?
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests If that were actually true, it would be nice. But I doubt it's true for very many unions. Certainly my past experience in the auto industry indicated that it was not the case for the UAW, which is the union involved in this particular case. > If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so? My personal belief is that unions should take this to its logical conclusion. If they really believe they can manage working conditions better than the employers, they should back that claim up by becoming full-fledged for-profit corporations, employing the workers they represent and negotiating contracts with the companies that want the services of those workers. If union claims are true, this arrangement should be a win-win: employees now work directly for the organization that represents them, and companies that want those services get them cheaper because the union can provide them more efficiently since they now employ the workers directly instead of being an inefficient middleman. If this were actually done and worked, it would be great. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
- jgrowl 9y ago
  So if someone should either be forced to join a union that they don't want to be apart of or just find another job. Doesn't this kinda provide an argument against unionizing in the first place? If you are joining a company that isn't part of a union you accepting that fact... why should employees be allowed to unionize when that it is against the wishes of the pre-existing wishes of the company?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I agree that this is an argument against unions, but only to the extent that it is also an argument against companies. Swap union/company and employee/employer in your argument and it remains just as valid.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      They're not the same arguments at all. The corollary would be if you started working for a company, and the company then created a union with other companies, and made it illegal for you to work for any company other than those that are part of this corporate union. In a free society, a company would be able to fire its workers for unionizing and hire new ones.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >If an employer really wants to hire non-union labor, they can leave their company and join a different one that doesn't have a union. This makes no sense. The employer shouldn't be forced to 'have a union'. It's not a voluntary relationship, and thus it totally violates the company owner's right to their own private property. Unions as they exist today are rent-seeking organizations that prey on employers. No wonder investors invest in other countries, and companies outsource.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
That's not how unions work in the US.
- metaphor 9y ago
  Feel free to enlighten us anytime. The parent has accurately described my experience, and I'm in the US.

mikeash 9y ago

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particular union, they have to find a different place to work. Why is the former reasonable but not the latter? If an employer really wants to hire non-union labor, they can leave their company and join a different one that doesn't have a union. You're playing an interesting semantic trick here where you use "employee" to refer to the individual, but "employer" to refer to the company. You thereby paint the asymmetry as unfair, when in fact there's no expectation that they should be the same. Let's compare individuals to individuals (laborers to management, say) and groups to groups (companies to unions). Why do the arguments against unions not also apply to companies? Give me something where if I replace "union" with "company" the result isn't an equally compelling argument against not letting employers organize collectively.

altstar 9y ago
The relationship between you as an employee and employer is totally different than you and a (potential) union. The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions. You are absolutely making no sense at all.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions That's like saying that the role of elected officials is to represent their constituents and serve their interests, treating them all with full equality under the law. It's a nice statement, but it's completely idealistic and doesn't accurately describe what actually happens in practice.
  - testrun 9y ago
    wtf? You work for a salary and you join a union if you want better working conditions and believe that is the only way to get it. This is not rocket science. What does politics have to do with it?
- mikeash 9y ago
  As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the company is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want. As an employer, the company is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the union is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want. I am not saying that an employee has the same relationship with their union and their company. I'm saying that when you break it down into employee/employer and company/union, it becomes fairly symmetrical. Look at the individuals on both sides, and then at the organizations on both sides. If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so?
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests If that were actually true, it would be nice. But I doubt it's true for very many unions. Certainly my past experience in the auto industry indicated that it was not the case for the UAW, which is the union involved in this particular case. > If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so? My personal belief is that unions should take this to its logical conclusion. If they really believe they can manage working conditions better than the employers, they should back that claim up by becoming full-fledged for-profit corporations, employing the workers they represent and negotiating contracts with the companies that want the services of those workers. If union claims are true, this arrangement should be a win-win: employees now work directly for the organization that represents them, and companies that want those services get them cheaper because the union can provide them more efficiently since they now employ the workers directly instead of being an inefficient middleman. If this were actually done and worked, it would be great. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
jgrowl 9y ago
So if someone should either be forced to join a union that they don't want to be apart of or just find another job. Doesn't this kinda provide an argument against unionizing in the first place? If you are joining a company that isn't part of a union you accepting that fact... why should employees be allowed to unionize when that it is against the wishes of the pre-existing wishes of the company?
- mikeash 9y ago
  I agree that this is an argument against unions, but only to the extent that it is also an argument against companies. Swap union/company and employee/employer in your argument and it remains just as valid.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    They're not the same arguments at all. The corollary would be if you started working for a company, and the company then created a union with other companies, and made it illegal for you to work for any company other than those that are part of this corporate union. In a free society, a company would be able to fire its workers for unionizing and hire new ones.
Jabanga 9y ago
>If an employer really wants to hire non-union labor, they can leave their company and join a different one that doesn't have a union. This makes no sense. The employer shouldn't be forced to 'have a union'. It's not a voluntary relationship, and thus it totally violates the company owner's right to their own private property. Unions as they exist today are rent-seeking organizations that prey on employers. No wonder investors invest in other countries, and companies outsource.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

That's not how unions work in the US.

metaphor 9y ago
Feel free to enlighten us anytime. The parent has accurately described my experience, and I'm in the US.