3 ms·

>>It's clear that you are anti-union. I don't think being pro or anti-union is the issue. I think being pro or anti-union due to ideological biases or a person

>>It's clear that you are anti-union. I don't think being pro or anti-union is the issue. I think being pro or anti-union due to ideological biases or a personal financial conflict of interest is the issue. That's what the TAs unionizing could result in. If one has a normative stance on unions that is derived from impartial analysis, that seems fine to me. >>It's like you didn't even read the Wikipedia page for Commonwealth v. Hunt. I was not talking about that case. I was talking about your earlier point about unions existing before labor laws gave them legal privileges, which you claimed proves unions can survive in a free market. My point was that historically, in the pre-labor-law era, all of the leverage that unions had seems to have come from the threat of violence toward replacement workers, and company property, which intimidated employers into negotiations. Are you familiar with how strikes were conducted in the 19th century? Are you familiar with the blockades, violently enforced picket lines, etc?

eesmith 9y ago
As I wrote, ideological biases which result in the TAs not unionizing are also a possible. No matter which way you view it, it's possible to cast suspicion on their presumed impartiality. Thus, I don't see your original comment as adding anything other than FUD. You wrote "I was not talking about that case". However, here's the chain: You: "Unions would be immediately fired if they were operating in a free market. Their power depends entirely on laws that restrict the contracting freedom of the employer." Me: "We know that unions exist in a free market and with no laws to support them because history gives clear examples." I specifically pointed to the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker’s Society in Commonwealth v. Hunt as my example. You: "I was not talking about that case" Except you were. You made a claim that was for all unions, including craft unions. Now you're backing away from your claim when you realized it's indefensible. You make that claim again with your statement "all of the leverage that unions had seems to have come from the threat of violence toward replacement workers, and company property, which intimidated employers into negotiations." Again, I point to Commonwealth v. Hunt as a counter-example to your claim. Their power comes from the collective agreement to quit en mass. The Supreme Court of MA found no conspiracy to threaten replacement workers or destroy company problem. Since what you claim is clearly wrong, why do you repeat it? Yes, certainly I know the basics of how strikes were conducted in the 19th century. But strikes aren't the only way to exercise collective bargaining ... as shown in Commonwealth v. Hunt where no evidence was presented to show the boot makers were even planning to strike. Yes, I know about blockades, violently enforced picket lines, etc. Yes, I also know about the Pinkerton Agency goon squads that the business owners employed, which among other things lead to the Anti-Pinkerton Act. And the "un-American" paternalism which was partially to blame for the Pullman Strike. And the deadly strike-breaking actions of Baldwin–Felts, leading to the Ludlow Massacre. This is why I stressed that you were looking at only 1/2 of the picture when you focused on government prohibitions of what an employer could do, and not also government prohibitions on what the unions could do. As MLK said, "a riot is the language of the unheard". Collective bargaining is a way to be heard.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>No matter which way you view it, it's possible to cast suspicion on their presumed impartiality. Of course, but there are degrees of suspicion. That's why we have standards. >>Thus, I don't see your original comment as adding anything other than FUD. Your comment is just trying to delegitimize valid concerns about the corrupting influence of union privileges. If you want to betray society by playing these manipulative games, I'm not going to dignify the rest of your response.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    You have never mentioned what those standards might be, or how they might be used in this case. Instead, your comments have implicitly assumed that those standards fit your view of the world. As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics. As for your last line, I can only shrug and say "takes one to know one."
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      I don't have to set a standard to make an observation that making TAs financially invested in the success of unions could bias their teaching. You're imposing unreasonable standards on me to try to shut down debate. It's disingenuous. >>As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics. You support Marxism! That doesn't suggest an empirically grounded understanding of economics. As for what you've demonstrated, it's just been deflections from my points about the history of unions, and the main tools they utilized to gain leverage. I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Yes, you are right. Boringly so. Remember my original comment? No matter what choice the TAs, they can be accused of having a bias that can affect their views as a teaching assistant. That's why I didn't think your comment added anything useful. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. Now you say I'm trying to "shut down debate". I've given you a series of questions to continue the debate and resolve differences, but all you do is make irrelevant accusations. I'll again speak to one of those irrelevant accusations. I most certainly AM NOT SUPPORTING MARXISM. You keep repeating it, but as far as I can tell it's because you don't know much about economics. I agree. I certainly don't know much about economics. I'm not saying I do. Instead, I am suggesting you know less about it than I do. You said "I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions." 1) You don't know that Marxian economics is not the same thing as Marxism and that Marxian economics, and you conflate Marxian economics with Marx's original labor theory of value. 2) You seem to combine "profit seeking" when it comes to unions with "rent seeking", when they are different terms. 3) You say that unions could not exist in a free market, and only exist now because of government laws; despite my pointing out that unions existed before there were any laws protecting them. 4) You say that unions only have power because of threats of violence by union members and supporters against other people and property; despite my pointing out that the threat to walk out en mass is part of the power of collective action, is not a threat of violence, and was the essential power of the union in Commonwealth v. Hunt. While if your view were true, Commonwealth v. Hunt would have been decided against the unions, not for. I have mentioned these before, but rather than address them you felt it was better to make unfounded assertions that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil" and that I "[accuse] opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism". You know what shuts down debate? Lies like that.

eesmith 9y ago

As I wrote, ideological biases which result in the TAs not unionizing are also a possible. No matter which way you view it, it's possible to cast suspicion on their presumed impartiality. Thus, I don't see your original comment as adding anything other than FUD. You wrote "I was not talking about that case". However, here's the chain: You: "Unions would be immediately fired if they were operating in a free market. Their power depends entirely on laws that restrict the contracting freedom of the employer." Me: "We know that unions exist in a free market and with no laws to support them because history gives clear examples." I specifically pointed to the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker’s Society in Commonwealth v. Hunt as my example. You: "I was not talking about that case" Except you were. You made a claim that was for all unions, including craft unions. Now you're backing away from your claim when you realized it's indefensible. You make that claim again with your statement "all of the leverage that unions had seems to have come from the threat of violence toward replacement workers, and company property, which intimidated employers into negotiations." Again, I point to Commonwealth v. Hunt as a counter-example to your claim. Their power comes from the collective agreement to quit en mass. The Supreme Court of MA found no conspiracy to threaten replacement workers or destroy company problem. Since what you claim is clearly wrong, why do you repeat it? Yes, certainly I know the basics of how strikes were conducted in the 19th century. But strikes aren't the only way to exercise collective bargaining ... as shown in Commonwealth v. Hunt where no evidence was presented to show the boot makers were even planning to strike. Yes, I know about blockades, violently enforced picket lines, etc. Yes, I also know about the Pinkerton Agency goon squads that the business owners employed, which among other things lead to the Anti-Pinkerton Act. And the "un-American" paternalism which was partially to blame for the Pullman Strike. And the deadly strike-breaking actions of Baldwin–Felts, leading to the Ludlow Massacre. This is why I stressed that you were looking at only 1/2 of the picture when you focused on government prohibitions of what an employer could do, and not also government prohibitions on what the unions could do. As MLK said, "a riot is the language of the unheard". Collective bargaining is a way to be heard.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>No matter which way you view it, it's possible to cast suspicion on their presumed impartiality. Of course, but there are degrees of suspicion. That's why we have standards. >>Thus, I don't see your original comment as adding anything other than FUD. Your comment is just trying to delegitimize valid concerns about the corrupting influence of union privileges. If you want to betray society by playing these manipulative games, I'm not going to dignify the rest of your response.
- eesmith 9y ago
  You have never mentioned what those standards might be, or how they might be used in this case. Instead, your comments have implicitly assumed that those standards fit your view of the world. As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics. As for your last line, I can only shrug and say "takes one to know one."
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    I don't have to set a standard to make an observation that making TAs financially invested in the success of unions could bias their teaching. You're imposing unreasonable standards on me to try to shut down debate. It's disingenuous. >>As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics. You support Marxism! That doesn't suggest an empirically grounded understanding of economics. As for what you've demonstrated, it's just been deflections from my points about the history of unions, and the main tools they utilized to gain leverage. I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Yes, you are right. Boringly so. Remember my original comment? No matter what choice the TAs, they can be accused of having a bias that can affect their views as a teaching assistant. That's why I didn't think your comment added anything useful. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. Now you say I'm trying to "shut down debate". I've given you a series of questions to continue the debate and resolve differences, but all you do is make irrelevant accusations. I'll again speak to one of those irrelevant accusations. I most certainly AM NOT SUPPORTING MARXISM. You keep repeating it, but as far as I can tell it's because you don't know much about economics. I agree. I certainly don't know much about economics. I'm not saying I do. Instead, I am suggesting you know less about it than I do. You said "I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions." 1) You don't know that Marxian economics is not the same thing as Marxism and that Marxian economics, and you conflate Marxian economics with Marx's original labor theory of value. 2) You seem to combine "profit seeking" when it comes to unions with "rent seeking", when they are different terms. 3) You say that unions could not exist in a free market, and only exist now because of government laws; despite my pointing out that unions existed before there were any laws protecting them. 4) You say that unions only have power because of threats of violence by union members and supporters against other people and property; despite my pointing out that the threat to walk out en mass is part of the power of collective action, is not a threat of violence, and was the essential power of the union in Commonwealth v. Hunt. While if your view were true, Commonwealth v. Hunt would have been decided against the unions, not for. I have mentioned these before, but rather than address them you felt it was better to make unfounded assertions that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil" and that I "[accuse] opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism". You know what shuts down debate? Lies like that.