3 ms·

Why not? I would presume that would help with regard to union busting, scabs, outsourcing, etc.

by fiter 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Why not? The same reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't sell themselves to the public prosecutor's office.
- fiter 7y ago
  Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense attorneys, because companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense attorneys, No, I'm implying that working for an actor’s counterparty compromises your ability to represent that actor in adversarial interactions with the same counterparty, which is a core function of unions with respect to employers as it is with defense attorneys with respect to prosecutors. > companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions. Not in the US; even where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work laws, adverse employment decisions on the basis of union membership or union-related activity by an employer are prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. That is, in some cases, employers are allowed to hire employees who aren't members of a union, but they aren't legally permitted to hire employees because (even in part) they aren't members of unions.
    - fiter 7y ago
      You're even more compromised if you are removed. In the US, do you think companies have not moved manufacturing from union plants to non-union plants? Do you think they have not moved manufacturing out of US plants? Do you think this does not have to do with union membership? I believe the adversarial view of unions and employers results in inefficiency and waste. I was suggesting an alternative view of unions and employers, but I believe I now understand you: you think this is impossible.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > You're even more compromised if you are removed. Unions (or their leadership) perceived as serving management are removed, invariably and swiftly, by their constituents, whether through decertification or leadership elections.
        fiter 7y ago
        I cannot tell if you are intentionally misreading my statement. If you are not, what I meant is that the union would be removed.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        That's what I am saying, too. I'm just saying that being beholden to management is a more certain way for them to be removed than being adversarial.

Why not? I would presume that would help with regard to union busting, scabs, outsourcing, etc.

by fiter 7y ago

Why not? I would presume that would help with regard to union busting, scabs, outsourcing, etc.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Why not? The same reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't sell themselves to the public prosecutor's office.

fiter 7y ago
Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense attorneys, because companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Are you implying that public prosecutors have the option to not interact with criminal defense attorneys, No, I'm implying that working for an actor’s counterparty compromises your ability to represent that actor in adversarial interactions with the same counterparty, which is a core function of unions with respect to employers as it is with defense attorneys with respect to prosecutors. > companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions. Not in the US; even where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work laws, adverse employment decisions on the basis of union membership or union-related activity by an employer are prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. That is, in some cases, employers are allowed to hire employees who aren't members of a union, but they aren't legally permitted to hire employees because (even in part) they aren't members of unions.
  - fiter 7y ago
    You're even more compromised if you are removed. In the US, do you think companies have not moved manufacturing from union plants to non-union plants? Do you think they have not moved manufacturing out of US plants? Do you think this does not have to do with union membership? I believe the adversarial view of unions and employers results in inefficiency and waste. I was suggesting an alternative view of unions and employers, but I believe I now understand you: you think this is impossible.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > You're even more compromised if you are removed. Unions (or their leadership) perceived as serving management are removed, invariably and swiftly, by their constituents, whether through decertification or leadership elections.
      - fiter 7y ago
        I cannot tell if you are intentionally misreading my statement. If you are not, what I meant is that the union would be removed.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        That's what I am saying, too. I'm just saying that being beholden to management is a more certain way for them to be removed than being adversarial.