4 ms·
Guess what: you (almost certainly) already are. You think your business (on orders from the management, not based on a vote of the workers) doesn't arbitrarily
by wfo 9y ago
Guess what: you (almost certainly) already are. You think your business (on orders from the management, not based on a vote of the workers) doesn't arbitrarily exclude people? You don't have HR officers who filter out great programmers because they don't have credentials? Your company doesn't post job listings that require 5 years of experience and a college degree to write basic CRUD apps? You just have no control over these decisions at all, so it is easier to divorce yourself from them. If you had some ownership over the decision making process, like in a union, you'd have to own it -- this is good, even if it means you don't get your way. It is a transition from having zero say (nonunion) to making an argument, being heard out, and losing. And who knows, convince enough people, argue well enough, and you'll win the vote next time. But you have to fight to get a vote in the first place before that happens.
- closeparen 9y agoIt's always going to be in the self-interest of union members to put up the strongest possible barriers to entry, to protect what makes the union members valuable: their scarcity. It's farcical to expect a majority of union members to put ideology above self-interest and vote to depress their own wages by permitting new entrants to follow in their footsteps (except in proportion to existing members leaving the field, maybe). People who are inside an advantageous position (employed in a desirable field, living in a desirable city) very reliably kick the ladder down once they've climbed. Society at large is nearly always better off when these people are disenfranchised and disempowered. You don't even need a tyrant to do this either; simply expand the voter pool to include would-be entrants as well as current members.