4 ms·

This is such a backwards way of thinking about collective bargaining. The corporations you work for the the exact same thing (lobby for things they want) and i

by 49531 8y ago

This is such a backwards way of thinking about collective bargaining. The corporations you work for the the exact same thing (lobby for things they want) and it's rarely for your own benefit. The difference between a union and a corporation is that unions are democratic organizations. Good luck voting your boss out of their job. All you can do now is quit and find a new job, which for a lot of workers isn't easy to do. This is the argument used in the recent Janus ruling of the SCOTUS. It's part of the last 40 years of anti-union propaganda shoved into our faces by corporations.

humanrebar 8y ago
There is an implicit false choice here. I don't have to pick between one lobbying group or another. I can reject both, at least in principle. Both can be true: - A union lobbies better for me than my employer. - No lobbying represents my views better than either employer or union lobbying.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Because you may not perfectly agree with union lobbying, it's better to leave corporate lobbying unopposed, which will almost certainly leave you (and the entire working class) worse off?
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I am so confused by this comment, the parent mentioned that they'd prefer if unions had a voice in lobbying over just having corporations lobbying but then mentioned that having no lobbying would be ideal. This seems like mentioning the perfect and then saying "And this other thing works too."
    - deogeo 8y ago
      Expecting corporations to stop lobbying is laughably unrealistic, so "no lobbying" isn't available.
      - munk-a 8y ago
        It is. The US spends enough money on elections that it really wouldn't be crazy to just switch over to public funding of elections and take money out of the equation entirely. But I do agree that there is no way companies would chose to refrain from lobbying if the option was available.
        nostrademons 8y ago
        There's also my favorite subtle fix to U.S. democracy - require all members of Congress to reside full-time in their districts and conduct all government business electronically. Now instead of hiring 1 lobbyist who can wine & dine 535 members of Congress and build personal relationships with every one, you have to hire 535 lobbyists who can each wine & dine 1 member of Congress and have to compete with their actual constituents & neighbors for social attention. This also has a number of other benefits to democracy, notably that social science has shown that our allegiance is to those who we are in closest proximity daily with (i.e. representatives might actually represent their constituents instead of the political class) and it disincentivizes gerrymandering (if you're gonna shove all the black people in one district, you're gonna be living with them).
        munk-a 8y ago
        I hadn't seen this proposal before but that actually makes a lot of sense and would probably help out quite a bit. There are concerns with logistics and security when it comes to electronically submitted votes for elections (i.e. e-voting) but this sort of a solution side steps any concerns like that, heck it could be voting by show of hands over a video chat. I do disagree with the gerrymandering portion though, I think the US really needs to adopt a proportional representation system (I'm partial to MMP) which would just make any attempt at gerrymandering irrelevant, sure you can win a particular seat if you gerrymander, but the amount you can effect overall representation would be quite minimal.
- masonic 8y ago
  A union lobbies better for me than my employer. No, a union typically lobbies for the interests of the union leaders. Those interests may or may not coincide with yours.
JoshTriplett 8y ago
> The difference between a union and a corporation is that unions are democratic organizations. I already have quite enough entities "democratically" deciding how to represent me or spend my money in ways I oppose, and I don't want another. Do not presume to speak for me or count me among a number of "supporters" of any cause without my explicit consent. The right way to handle any kind of lobbying is "we're thinking of supporting this cause, here's an easy link if you'd like to support that cause, and we'll only speak for those who agree"; that would still allow a union to facilitate collective action without presuming to speak for everyone. There's a huge difference between (for instance) "let's collectively demand better working conditions, better benefits, and equitable treatment" and "let's lobby the government to make it illegal to work on software without being a union member". I don't care if 53% of a union favors the latter or not. Unions can and do engage in regulatory capture. Like any concentration of power, unions can be used for good or for ill. Propaganda would have you believe they're always bad, and pro-union folks would have you believe they're always good.

by 49531 8y ago

humanrebar 8y ago

There is an implicit false choice here. I don't have to pick between one lobbying group or another. I can reject both, at least in principle. Both can be true: - A union lobbies better for me than my employer. - No lobbying represents my views better than either employer or union lobbying.

deogeo 8y ago
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Because you may not perfectly agree with union lobbying, it's better to leave corporate lobbying unopposed, which will almost certainly leave you (and the entire working class) worse off?
- munk-a 8y ago
  I am so confused by this comment, the parent mentioned that they'd prefer if unions had a voice in lobbying over just having corporations lobbying but then mentioned that having no lobbying would be ideal. This seems like mentioning the perfect and then saying "And this other thing works too."
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Expecting corporations to stop lobbying is laughably unrealistic, so "no lobbying" isn't available.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      It is. The US spends enough money on elections that it really wouldn't be crazy to just switch over to public funding of elections and take money out of the equation entirely. But I do agree that there is no way companies would chose to refrain from lobbying if the option was available.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        There's also my favorite subtle fix to U.S. democracy - require all members of Congress to reside full-time in their districts and conduct all government business electronically. Now instead of hiring 1 lobbyist who can wine & dine 535 members of Congress and build personal relationships with every one, you have to hire 535 lobbyists who can each wine & dine 1 member of Congress and have to compete with their actual constituents & neighbors for social attention. This also has a number of other benefits to democracy, notably that social science has shown that our allegiance is to those who we are in closest proximity daily with (i.e. representatives might actually represent their constituents instead of the political class) and it disincentivizes gerrymandering (if you're gonna shove all the black people in one district, you're gonna be living with them).
        munk-a 8y ago
        I hadn't seen this proposal before but that actually makes a lot of sense and would probably help out quite a bit. There are concerns with logistics and security when it comes to electronically submitted votes for elections (i.e. e-voting) but this sort of a solution side steps any concerns like that, heck it could be voting by show of hands over a video chat. I do disagree with the gerrymandering portion though, I think the US really needs to adopt a proportional representation system (I'm partial to MMP) which would just make any attempt at gerrymandering irrelevant, sure you can win a particular seat if you gerrymander, but the amount you can effect overall representation would be quite minimal.
masonic 8y ago
A union lobbies better for me than my employer. No, a union typically lobbies for the interests of the union leaders. Those interests may or may not coincide with yours.

JoshTriplett 8y ago

> The difference between a union and a corporation is that unions are democratic organizations. I already have quite enough entities "democratically" deciding how to represent me or spend my money in ways I oppose, and I don't want another. Do not presume to speak for me or count me among a number of "supporters" of any cause without my explicit consent. The right way to handle any kind of lobbying is "we're thinking of supporting this cause, here's an easy link if you'd like to support that cause, and we'll only speak for those who agree"; that would still allow a union to facilitate collective action without presuming to speak for everyone. There's a huge difference between (for instance) "let's collectively demand better working conditions, better benefits, and equitable treatment" and "let's lobby the government to make it illegal to work on software without being a union member". I don't care if 53% of a union favors the latter or not. Unions can and do engage in regulatory capture. Like any concentration of power, unions can be used for good or for ill. Propaganda would have you believe they're always bad, and pro-union folks would have you believe they're always good.