4 ms·

I imagine this is going to affect their journalistic impartiality.

epicureanideal 8y ago
For better, or for worse? It could be argued that whatever bias a union leads to could also have been happening in reverse in a non-union environment. Job insecurity, lack of benefits, etc. such as the article mentions, also could affect impartiality.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  I think for the worse. They will now have a major bone in the individual liberty vs enforced collectivism fight. Their benefits are directly derived from their employer not having the freedom-to-contract/full-control-over-their-private-property.
  - lovich 8y ago
    > freedom-to-contract/full-control-over-their-private-property. Ah yes, I forgot that employees were private property of employees. These damn uppity workers thinking they could band together to negotiate. Why wont they just negotiate one on one with me so I can pay them less?
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      That's an absurd straw man. I'm referring to their company, and their right to offer any terms of employment they want, which is restricted by federal law stating that you cannot have employment terms that discriminate against unionized workers, enable the company to refuse particular demands by unions (e.g. collective bargaining), or fire an employee for particular types of activity, like staging a strike. Union-privileging labor laws usurps an employer's control over their own company. They replace contract law with central planning that regiments the acceptable range of employment relationships between consenting adults.
      - lovich 8y ago
        You referenced freedom over private property when discussing union-employer negotiations. Maybe that was a mistake but your phrasing implies to me that you view the employers rights as greater than all others. Why are the employers rights being trampled here if the union is a bunch of employees who agreed to negotiate together? The employer can refuse the unions deal, and then its on them to figure out how to run a company without employees. The employers dont have a right to divide and conquer the employees so that they can get better terms. >They replace contract law with central planning that regiments the acceptable range of employment relationships between consenting adults. How is this even replacing contract with central planning? Are you trying to connect the bogeyman of communism with unions? Consenting adults are the ones who decided what the employment relationship was
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        >>Why are the employers rights being trampled here if the union is a bunch of employees who agreed to negotiate together? Because federal law forces the employer to negotiate with the union, and prohibits the employer from negotiating with any other party. This violates the employer's rights by giving unions special rights to the employer's private property. >>The employers dont have a right to divide and conquer the employees so that they can get better terms. Yes they do. In a free society, you can negotiate with whoever you want. You unionizing shouldn't impose any restrictions on me negotiating with a third party, or obligations to negotiate with you. Laws that impose these requirements are oppressive. >>How is this even replacing contract with central planning? The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people.
        lovich 8y ago
        The federal government doesn't make employers have to continue working with unions. Scabs are a real thing. The unions are able to force companies to negotiate anyway because it is difficult to replace a large number of employees at once, especially if they have any skills. >The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people. By this argument any employment law is central planning. That's hyperbole

For better, or for worse? It could be argued that whatever bias a union leads to could also have been happening in reverse in a non-union environment. Job insecurity, lack of benefits, etc. such as the article mentions, also could affect impartiality.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
I think for the worse. They will now have a major bone in the individual liberty vs enforced collectivism fight. Their benefits are directly derived from their employer not having the freedom-to-contract/full-control-over-their-private-property.
- lovich 8y ago
  > freedom-to-contract/full-control-over-their-private-property. Ah yes, I forgot that employees were private property of employees. These damn uppity workers thinking they could band together to negotiate. Why wont they just negotiate one on one with me so I can pay them less?
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    That's an absurd straw man. I'm referring to their company, and their right to offer any terms of employment they want, which is restricted by federal law stating that you cannot have employment terms that discriminate against unionized workers, enable the company to refuse particular demands by unions (e.g. collective bargaining), or fire an employee for particular types of activity, like staging a strike. Union-privileging labor laws usurps an employer's control over their own company. They replace contract law with central planning that regiments the acceptable range of employment relationships between consenting adults.
    - lovich 8y ago
      You referenced freedom over private property when discussing union-employer negotiations. Maybe that was a mistake but your phrasing implies to me that you view the employers rights as greater than all others. Why are the employers rights being trampled here if the union is a bunch of employees who agreed to negotiate together? The employer can refuse the unions deal, and then its on them to figure out how to run a company without employees. The employers dont have a right to divide and conquer the employees so that they can get better terms. >They replace contract law with central planning that regiments the acceptable range of employment relationships between consenting adults. How is this even replacing contract with central planning? Are you trying to connect the bogeyman of communism with unions? Consenting adults are the ones who decided what the employment relationship was
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        >>Why are the employers rights being trampled here if the union is a bunch of employees who agreed to negotiate together? Because federal law forces the employer to negotiate with the union, and prohibits the employer from negotiating with any other party. This violates the employer's rights by giving unions special rights to the employer's private property. >>The employers dont have a right to divide and conquer the employees so that they can get better terms. Yes they do. In a free society, you can negotiate with whoever you want. You unionizing shouldn't impose any restrictions on me negotiating with a third party, or obligations to negotiate with you. Laws that impose these requirements are oppressive. >>How is this even replacing contract with central planning? The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people.
        lovich 8y ago
        The federal government doesn't make employers have to continue working with unions. Scabs are a real thing. The unions are able to force companies to negotiate anyway because it is difficult to replace a large number of employees at once, especially if they have any skills. >The laws that regiment employment relationships are decided by a central body, and restrict the contract freedom of millions of people. By this argument any employment law is central planning. That's hyperbole