9 ms·

what if no employers in your field share your values?

by door5 8y ago

manfredo 8y ago
Sure that possiblity exists. But that scenario is a strict subset of the scenarios in which unionization would force people to support views to which they are opposed. If there is exactly one employer in your area you're hosed union or not.
- munk-a 8y ago
  I disagree, in many cases people disagree with the opinions of organizations they join. Introducing sane gun regulations have polled above 66% but the representatives we have in washington won't touch that with a ten foot pole. Similarly a lot of labourers may share opinions that managers may disagree with, with how lobbying works the opinions of management and above are codified in lobbying efforts, unionization would allow the majority opinion to be expressed.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    True it allows the majority union opinion to be expressed. But it doesn't change the fact the workers are still enabling the company to spread it's message by virtue of working there. They can avoid the latter by working for a different company. Furthermore, there isn't anything that's preventing those employees from voicing their opinions without a union. The story linked in the OP is exactly that. Unless tech companies are firing thier employers for their political views, employees can make their views known regardless of union status. While we have seen a few instances of that, most were views that I doubt the average pro software developer union person wants to see defended (then again a lot of people proposing unionizing developers want to limit H1Bs so you never know). Contrast this with people who are against what the union is doing. The only way to avoid this is to leave the union. In some states (including California) this may mean leaving the entire field of work. Right to work states guarantee the ability to work without union membership, but many (most?) tech jobs are not in those States.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      I make enough that I have consciously chosen to work for a company that I endorse the values of. But this is the second job I have had after immigrating to Canada, the first one paid well and I needed work. Being able to quit a job over a moral objection is a painted as a luxury to most employees (whether it actually is a luxury or not... I think is less relevant than all the media we're fed reinforcing the fact that having a job is a privilege we're lucky to be allowed)
      - manfredo 8y ago
        I don't disagree that quitting one's job over political disagreement is a luxury for many, if not most people. But however hard it is to quit one's job, it is even harder to quit one's entire field - which is what is needed to avoid union membership is non right to work States. Thus to depict union membership as protecting workers' ability to avoid taking part in the endorsement of views is nonsensical. It is strictly harder to quit a union than to quit one's job. Because the latter not only involves quitting one's job, but also finding new employment in a different field.
        cyphar 8y ago
        > It is strictly harder to quit a union than to quit one's job. Because the latter not only involves quitting one's job, but also finding new employment in a different field. (Did you mean "former"?) I think you're being more than a little hyperbolic. Unions can't force employers to not hire you if you're not a member (in fact most employers probably would prefer non-union employees because the employees have less negotiating strength). Not to mention that historically unions have been the catalyst for workers rights legislation (like the 5-day work week, and 9-5 hours, overtime pay, and so on). So even if you aren't a member there are obvious benefits to employees who aren't members of a union (in the long run).
        manfredo 8y ago
        > Unions can't force employers to not hire you if you're not a member This is not the case. At least, it is allowed in States that have not passed legislation to that effect. Many (usually liberal) States have not done so, as it would weaken the power of unions.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > Introducing sane gun regulations have polled above 66% but the representatives we have in washington won't touch that with a ten foot pole. And do you know why it is so? The popular adage is "gun lobby throws money at representatives", but it's actually not true. The reason why gun control doesn't get traction despite popular support is because those polls that measure support or opposition don't measure the dedication of people expressing it. The majority, when asked about gun control, support it, yes - but most don't feel particularly strong about it, and extremely few consider it a make-or-break single issue. So when it comes to voting, politicians know that they can get those people's votes even if they don't go for gun control, riding on other issues. OTOH, NRA (and other gun rights orgs) have a very effective resource, and that isn't money - it's membership. Specifically, it's the subset of its members that is laser focused on gun legislation, and the majority of whom consider it their single most important issue. Because of that, they're likely to turn out in the primaries, and vote based solely on that one thing, ignoring everything else. Furthermore, NRA (or rather NRA-PVF specifically) facilitates it by compiling dossiers on various candidates in all races across the country, and publishing them together with voting guides. So what this all means is that any Republican who openly supports gun control will find it hard to get through the primary. And, conversely, not supporting it is not a big downside in the general (D voters will vote against you anyway, and R voters will vote for you anyway). This is changing lately with the rise of left-wing, ideologically motivated groups that target primaries in a similar way, like Indivisibles, which means that Dems these days are a bit more likely to pick it up. But it's still a litmus test for Republicans, and for as long as that remains the case, you're not going to see 70% popular support translate to 70% legislature votes. By the way, we had a very good demonstration of this recently. Remember the whole bump stock kerfuffle? When ATF announced that it's reviewing its categorization of them, there was a public comment period. Here's how it went: "Of the more than 17,000 public comments received so far by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a review by Reuters of 4,200 turned up only 10 favoring the bump stock ban. Almost all the rest criticized the proposal as heavy-handed, unnecessary or unconstitutional." Funnier still, most comments expressing support for the ban were form letters, while most comments expressing opposition were not. This despite the fact that over 80% of the population support the ban, according to the polls - just not enough to bother leaving a public comment on the Internet expressing that opinion, much less prioritize it in their voting choices.
- door5 8y ago
  I have very left wing politics, socially and economically. A union is by nature far more likely to represent my views than any corporation. If your politics are "rich people should be able to do whatever they want, collaborate with whatever despicable organizations they like, treat employees however they like and have little oversight over their business", that is a justifiable reason to oppose unionization. I don't share those views, but that's the status quo, and it is almost completely inescapable in this industry.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I think you're thinking a bit too coarse grained. Do you believe that teachers should get performance based pay? Plenty of liberal teachers think so, but they have no choice but to fund an organization that lobbies for the contrary. Same deal with unions in tech. Say you're in favor of immigration for high skilled workers. Most unions are against immigration when it has the potential to increase the supply of labor in their field (because increased supply = lower costs of labor).
    - door5 8y ago
      I always thought performance based pay was a very right wing proposal, supported by right wing organisations. I think that's a good point -- unions are not perfect and may support the interests of their members over the interests of other workers or society at large. However, in my view they are far preferable to any corporate board of directors, which represents only the interests of the owners of the company. Politics is struggle, it isn't just opting out of things you don't like, or else you'll end up a hermit. it's organizing for representation and power, and unions are one example of that kind of organization. An imperfect one, yes, but far preferable in my view to none at all
    - kiliantics 8y ago
      Performance-based pay just leads to gamification of the performance metric, not better teaching/education. Teachers should get paid a living wage, and that's what their unions should be working for. There are certainly unions with bad politics. The ideal is a union that is embedded as part of a broader pro-worker movement that supports migrants, women, other minorities, the unemployed, etc.

what if no employers in your field share your values?

by door5 8y ago

what if no employers in your field share your values?

Sure that possiblity exists. But that scenario is a strict subset of the scenarios in which unionization would force people to support views to which they are opposed. If there is exactly one employer in your area you're hosed union or not.

munk-a 8y ago
I disagree, in many cases people disagree with the opinions of organizations they join. Introducing sane gun regulations have polled above 66% but the representatives we have in washington won't touch that with a ten foot pole. Similarly a lot of labourers may share opinions that managers may disagree with, with how lobbying works the opinions of management and above are codified in lobbying efforts, unionization would allow the majority opinion to be expressed.
- manfredo 8y ago
  True it allows the majority union opinion to be expressed. But it doesn't change the fact the workers are still enabling the company to spread it's message by virtue of working there. They can avoid the latter by working for a different company. Furthermore, there isn't anything that's preventing those employees from voicing their opinions without a union. The story linked in the OP is exactly that. Unless tech companies are firing thier employers for their political views, employees can make their views known regardless of union status. While we have seen a few instances of that, most were views that I doubt the average pro software developer union person wants to see defended (then again a lot of people proposing unionizing developers want to limit H1Bs so you never know). Contrast this with people who are against what the union is doing. The only way to avoid this is to leave the union. In some states (including California) this may mean leaving the entire field of work. Right to work states guarantee the ability to work without union membership, but many (most?) tech jobs are not in those States.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I make enough that I have consciously chosen to work for a company that I endorse the values of. But this is the second job I have had after immigrating to Canada, the first one paid well and I needed work. Being able to quit a job over a moral objection is a painted as a luxury to most employees (whether it actually is a luxury or not... I think is less relevant than all the media we're fed reinforcing the fact that having a job is a privilege we're lucky to be allowed)
    - manfredo 8y ago
      I don't disagree that quitting one's job over political disagreement is a luxury for many, if not most people. But however hard it is to quit one's job, it is even harder to quit one's entire field - which is what is needed to avoid union membership is non right to work States. Thus to depict union membership as protecting workers' ability to avoid taking part in the endorsement of views is nonsensical. It is strictly harder to quit a union than to quit one's job. Because the latter not only involves quitting one's job, but also finding new employment in a different field.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        > It is strictly harder to quit a union than to quit one's job. Because the latter not only involves quitting one's job, but also finding new employment in a different field. (Did you mean "former"?) I think you're being more than a little hyperbolic. Unions can't force employers to not hire you if you're not a member (in fact most employers probably would prefer non-union employees because the employees have less negotiating strength). Not to mention that historically unions have been the catalyst for workers rights legislation (like the 5-day work week, and 9-5 hours, overtime pay, and so on). So even if you aren't a member there are obvious benefits to employees who aren't members of a union (in the long run).
        manfredo 8y ago
        > Unions can't force employers to not hire you if you're not a member This is not the case. At least, it is allowed in States that have not passed legislation to that effect. Many (usually liberal) States have not done so, as it would weaken the power of unions.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > Introducing sane gun regulations have polled above 66% but the representatives we have in washington won't touch that with a ten foot pole. And do you know why it is so? The popular adage is "gun lobby throws money at representatives", but it's actually not true. The reason why gun control doesn't get traction despite popular support is because those polls that measure support or opposition don't measure the dedication of people expressing it. The majority, when asked about gun control, support it, yes - but most don't feel particularly strong about it, and extremely few consider it a make-or-break single issue. So when it comes to voting, politicians know that they can get those people's votes even if they don't go for gun control, riding on other issues. OTOH, NRA (and other gun rights orgs) have a very effective resource, and that isn't money - it's membership. Specifically, it's the subset of its members that is laser focused on gun legislation, and the majority of whom consider it their single most important issue. Because of that, they're likely to turn out in the primaries, and vote based solely on that one thing, ignoring everything else. Furthermore, NRA (or rather NRA-PVF specifically) facilitates it by compiling dossiers on various candidates in all races across the country, and publishing them together with voting guides. So what this all means is that any Republican who openly supports gun control will find it hard to get through the primary. And, conversely, not supporting it is not a big downside in the general (D voters will vote against you anyway, and R voters will vote for you anyway). This is changing lately with the rise of left-wing, ideologically motivated groups that target primaries in a similar way, like Indivisibles, which means that Dems these days are a bit more likely to pick it up. But it's still a litmus test for Republicans, and for as long as that remains the case, you're not going to see 70% popular support translate to 70% legislature votes. By the way, we had a very good demonstration of this recently. Remember the whole bump stock kerfuffle? When ATF announced that it's reviewing its categorization of them, there was a public comment period. Here's how it went: "Of the more than 17,000 public comments received so far by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a review by Reuters of 4,200 turned up only 10 favoring the bump stock ban. Almost all the rest criticized the proposal as heavy-handed, unnecessary or unconstitutional." Funnier still, most comments expressing support for the ban were form letters, while most comments expressing opposition were not. This despite the fact that over 80% of the population support the ban, according to the polls - just not enough to bother leaving a public comment on the Internet expressing that opinion, much less prioritize it in their voting choices.
door5 8y ago
I have very left wing politics, socially and economically. A union is by nature far more likely to represent my views than any corporation. If your politics are "rich people should be able to do whatever they want, collaborate with whatever despicable organizations they like, treat employees however they like and have little oversight over their business", that is a justifiable reason to oppose unionization. I don't share those views, but that's the status quo, and it is almost completely inescapable in this industry.
- manfredo 8y ago
  I think you're thinking a bit too coarse grained. Do you believe that teachers should get performance based pay? Plenty of liberal teachers think so, but they have no choice but to fund an organization that lobbies for the contrary. Same deal with unions in tech. Say you're in favor of immigration for high skilled workers. Most unions are against immigration when it has the potential to increase the supply of labor in their field (because increased supply = lower costs of labor).
  - door5 8y ago
    I always thought performance based pay was a very right wing proposal, supported by right wing organisations. I think that's a good point -- unions are not perfect and may support the interests of their members over the interests of other workers or society at large. However, in my view they are far preferable to any corporate board of directors, which represents only the interests of the owners of the company. Politics is struggle, it isn't just opting out of things you don't like, or else you'll end up a hermit. it's organizing for representation and power, and unions are one example of that kind of organization. An imperfect one, yes, but far preferable in my view to none at all
  - kiliantics 8y ago
    Performance-based pay just leads to gamification of the performance metric, not better teaching/education. Teachers should get paid a living wage, and that's what their unions should be working for. There are certainly unions with bad politics. The ideal is a union that is embedded as part of a broader pro-worker movement that supports migrants, women, other minorities, the unemployed, etc.