10 ms·

What makes you call them goons? Politicians, activists, all sorts of people go door knocking around the time of elections and referendums. What made this intera

What makes you call them goons? Politicians, activists, all sorts of people go door knocking around the time of elections and referendums. What made this interaction so different that you call them goons sent there to intimidate you, not activists trying to attract your vote?

MrStonedOne 6y ago
corpitized unions (anything union organisation bigger then 1 location of 1 employer) are goons.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  So what does that make corporations with more than 1 location?
  - MrStonedOne 6y ago
    Each location should have its own union, grouping them all up allows the needs of the few to get drowned out by the wants of the many, and elevates union leadership to a position of power over the workers as union reps have easier access to spread their messaging to employees across locations while normal employees can only organize within their location.
    - scarmig 6y ago
      It also significantly decreases negotiating power. The point of unions is that someone small (an individual) has a hard time fairly negotiating with an organization (a company). Multiple small single-site unions would be just as ineffective negotiating with one large multi-site company.
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        Especially since large companies are known for closing down locations as soon as they unionize.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > (...) and elevates union leadership to a position of power over the workers as union reps I don't understand your point. Do you believe that this so called risk of an elected representative getting more power than the people that elected him is overall worse than the people having absolutely no power or representation? I mean, can you explain why in your view leaving an employee SOL is more desirable than ensuring he has some say?
      - MrStonedOne 6y ago
        My view is that laws must keep unions from acting in bad faith before forced unions can be allowed to exist. The primary positive effect of a union is its appeals process that keep employers from firing you on a whim. Nothing about that positive effect requires the union be forced upon you, and if unions had to earn their dues they wouldn't act in bad faith as often.
        kergonath 6y ago
        In which actual country is forced unionisation a thing? It sounds more like stupid local laws than a flaw in the concept of trade unions.
        PeterisP 6y ago
        Unions can (and, if they're strong and it's not prohibited, often do) make collective agreements with the employer that mandate that the employer will not be permitted to employ non-union workers for these jobs. In a "closed union shop" you'd be required to join the union when you're hired, and if you would not join or if you would get kicked out of the union, the employer would have to fire you. This is pretty much 'forced unionisation'. Another possible part of such collective agreements is that the employer will withhold union dues and hand them to the union no matter if the employee wants to join or not; to prevent the 'free rider' effect where some employees get the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for the representation (the appropriateness of this argument can be debated, but that's at least the stated intent). In about half of USA ("right to work" states) such agreements are illegal, and in about half of USA unions can have such practices.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      >>> corpitized unions (anything union organisation bigger then 1 location of 1 employer) are goons. > Each location should have its own union You might as well go all the way, and condemn any union with more than one member. The whole point of a union is to have an organization representing the workers that has enough power to negotiate with the employer as a relative equal. Your "single site" unions would be pointless in many cases. They'd have no power, because the employer's power to close and transfer work between sites would completely undermine the union with little disruption to the employer. Just look at how Walmart handled it's only successful unionization effort: https://apnews.com/3d709955866a71cc82d641b848714fd0 https://apnews.com/3d709955866a71cc82d641b848714fd0 > The United Food and Commercial Workers is seeking an injunction against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to prevent the giant retailer from eliminating meat cutting departments at 180 stores with prepackaged meat.... > The decision to eliminate the meat cutters came just weeks after the butchers at the Jacksonville, Texas, Wal-Mart voted 7-3 to join the UFCW, the first successful union vote in the country at a Wal-Mart, a company well known for its opposition to organized labor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-activism/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-ove...: > The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has filed a claim with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that Walmart's (WMT) recent closing of five stores was done in retaliation for a history of labor activism at one of the locations, rather than because of the plumbing problems the retailer cited, The New York Times reports. The union is asking the government agency for an injunction that would require Walmart to rehire the 2,200 workers who were temporarily laid off or affected by the closings. Your "single site" unions would be anything less than a sham to neuter unions was that if businesses were also forbidden from expanding beyond a single site, so each location would have to be a totally independent business. So instead of the Walmart corporation, you'd have 11,496 independent retail businesses with no common ownership or management structure.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kergonath 6y ago
        That specific poster would probably not see ineffective and powerless unions as a bad thing.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    I believe "cartel" would be the closest technical term.
dylan604 6y ago
I used quotes because I was quoting my flatmate. She said their demeanor was not welcoming at all, and it felt very aggressive. I kind of wish I was there just so I could have told them what I thought, but spilled milk and what not.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  Not saying this is the case, but it occurs to me... that would be a good way to sabotage the start of an union. Just send some aggressive people posing like members of the union.
  - _jal 6y ago
    It is, and there's evidence that has happened in the US. The Pinkertons have been busting unions for over a century - they have pretty much explored the full range of options for worker suppression available to capital. False flags can be a powerful tool (but becoming less so, as surveillance makes deniability harder).
  - refurb 6y ago
    Ahh... of course. Employers use dirty tactics and if unions do, it’s because it’s employers trying to sabotage them. No way a union could ever use dirty tricks too. But of course they might because they were forced to by their employers?
    - kergonath 6y ago
      How many documented instances of unionised militants trying to bully workers into joining? History is full of private interests using the full might of the state and any trick they can think of to prevent unions. So yeah, one is more likely than the other.
chrisseaton 6y ago
Union activists in the UK have a reputation of being bullies, and in some cases in the past they've used physical violence to try to get people to do things their way. At the height of union fever back in the 80s it got so bad at one point that union activists dropped a concrete block on someone's head from a bridge because he was trying to get into work and they thought he should be striking (David Wilkie.) I would not appreciate union goons showing up at my door and I'd have a similar reaction.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Also at the time that the leader of the NUM, the striking union, was a self-avowed Stalinist.[1] It's hard to overstate the extreme militancy of trade union leadership in the UK during the late 1970s. While Thatcher gets the blame for the disintegration of the labor movement, just as big an issue was that the union leadership no longer represented the opinions of its rank-and-file members. The 1984 miners strike largely failed, because most of the local unions decided not to join. Scargill never put the strike to a membership wide ballot, because he knew it probably wouldn't have passed. Union leadership became more focused on pushing communist ideology than it was on representing its members. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill#Socialist_Labour_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill#Socialist_Labo...
  - kmlx 6y ago
    don't know why you're getting downvoted. this is part of history and one of the many reasons unions have failed in the UK. and they're still failing having lower number of members every single year.
    - winphone1974 6y ago
      Probably because of the same sentiment towards rewriting history that's going around now. Rather then learn and move forward lots of people seem to prefer going back in time and judging history through today's lens.
    - edent 6y ago

MrStonedOne 6y ago

corpitized unions (anything union organisation bigger then 1 location of 1 employer) are goons.

AlexandrB 6y ago
So what does that make corporations with more than 1 location?
- MrStonedOne 6y ago
  Each location should have its own union, grouping them all up allows the needs of the few to get drowned out by the wants of the many, and elevates union leadership to a position of power over the workers as union reps have easier access to spread their messaging to employees across locations while normal employees can only organize within their location.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    It also significantly decreases negotiating power. The point of unions is that someone small (an individual) has a hard time fairly negotiating with an organization (a company). Multiple small single-site unions would be just as ineffective negotiating with one large multi-site company.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      Especially since large companies are known for closing down locations as soon as they unionize.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > (...) and elevates union leadership to a position of power over the workers as union reps I don't understand your point. Do you believe that this so called risk of an elected representative getting more power than the people that elected him is overall worse than the people having absolutely no power or representation? I mean, can you explain why in your view leaving an employee SOL is more desirable than ensuring he has some say?
    - MrStonedOne 6y ago
      My view is that laws must keep unions from acting in bad faith before forced unions can be allowed to exist. The primary positive effect of a union is its appeals process that keep employers from firing you on a whim. Nothing about that positive effect requires the union be forced upon you, and if unions had to earn their dues they wouldn't act in bad faith as often.
      - kergonath 6y ago
        In which actual country is forced unionisation a thing? It sounds more like stupid local laws than a flaw in the concept of trade unions.
        PeterisP 6y ago
        Unions can (and, if they're strong and it's not prohibited, often do) make collective agreements with the employer that mandate that the employer will not be permitted to employ non-union workers for these jobs. In a "closed union shop" you'd be required to join the union when you're hired, and if you would not join or if you would get kicked out of the union, the employer would have to fire you. This is pretty much 'forced unionisation'. Another possible part of such collective agreements is that the employer will withhold union dues and hand them to the union no matter if the employee wants to join or not; to prevent the 'free rider' effect where some employees get the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for the representation (the appropriateness of this argument can be debated, but that's at least the stated intent). In about half of USA ("right to work" states) such agreements are illegal, and in about half of USA unions can have such practices.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >>> corpitized unions (anything union organisation bigger then 1 location of 1 employer) are goons. > Each location should have its own union You might as well go all the way, and condemn any union with more than one member. The whole point of a union is to have an organization representing the workers that has enough power to negotiate with the employer as a relative equal. Your "single site" unions would be pointless in many cases. They'd have no power, because the employer's power to close and transfer work between sites would completely undermine the union with little disruption to the employer. Just look at how Walmart handled it's only successful unionization effort: https://apnews.com/3d709955866a71cc82d641b848714fd0 https://apnews.com/3d709955866a71cc82d641b848714fd0 > The United Food and Commercial Workers is seeking an injunction against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to prevent the giant retailer from eliminating meat cutting departments at 180 stores with prepackaged meat.... > The decision to eliminate the meat cutters came just weeks after the butchers at the Jacksonville, Texas, Wal-Mart voted 7-3 to join the UFCW, the first successful union vote in the country at a Wal-Mart, a company well known for its opposition to organized labor. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-over-labor-activism/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/union-walmart-shut-5-stores-ove...: > The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has filed a claim with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that Walmart's (WMT) recent closing of five stores was done in retaliation for a history of labor activism at one of the locations, rather than because of the plumbing problems the retailer cited, The New York Times reports. The union is asking the government agency for an injunction that would require Walmart to rehire the 2,200 workers who were temporarily laid off or affected by the closings. Your "single site" unions would be anything less than a sham to neuter unions was that if businesses were also forbidden from expanding beyond a single site, so each location would have to be a totally independent business. So instead of the Walmart corporation, you'd have 11,496 independent retail businesses with no common ownership or management structure.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kergonath 6y ago
      That specific poster would probably not see ineffective and powerless unions as a bad thing.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  I believe "cartel" would be the closest technical term.

dylan604 6y ago

I used quotes because I was quoting my flatmate. She said their demeanor was not welcoming at all, and it felt very aggressive. I kind of wish I was there just so I could have told them what I thought, but spilled milk and what not.

RobertoG 6y ago
Not saying this is the case, but it occurs to me... that would be a good way to sabotage the start of an union. Just send some aggressive people posing like members of the union.
- _jal 6y ago
  It is, and there's evidence that has happened in the US. The Pinkertons have been busting unions for over a century - they have pretty much explored the full range of options for worker suppression available to capital. False flags can be a powerful tool (but becoming less so, as surveillance makes deniability harder).
- refurb 6y ago
  Ahh... of course. Employers use dirty tactics and if unions do, it’s because it’s employers trying to sabotage them. No way a union could ever use dirty tricks too. But of course they might because they were forced to by their employers?
  - kergonath 6y ago
    How many documented instances of unionised militants trying to bully workers into joining? History is full of private interests using the full might of the state and any trick they can think of to prevent unions. So yeah, one is more likely than the other.

chrisseaton 6y ago

Union activists in the UK have a reputation of being bullies, and in some cases in the past they've used physical violence to try to get people to do things their way. At the height of union fever back in the 80s it got so bad at one point that union activists dropped a concrete block on someone's head from a bridge because he was trying to get into work and they thought he should be striking (David Wilkie.) I would not appreciate union goons showing up at my door and I'd have a similar reaction.

dcolkitt 6y ago
Also at the time that the leader of the NUM, the striking union, was a self-avowed Stalinist.[1] It's hard to overstate the extreme militancy of trade union leadership in the UK during the late 1970s. While Thatcher gets the blame for the disintegration of the labor movement, just as big an issue was that the union leadership no longer represented the opinions of its rank-and-file members. The 1984 miners strike largely failed, because most of the local unions decided not to join. Scargill never put the strike to a membership wide ballot, because he knew it probably wouldn't have passed. Union leadership became more focused on pushing communist ideology than it was on representing its members. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill#Socialist_Labour_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill#Socialist_Labo...
- kmlx 6y ago
  don't know why you're getting downvoted. this is part of history and one of the many reasons unions have failed in the UK. and they're still failing having lower number of members every single year.
  - winphone1974 6y ago
    Probably because of the same sentiment towards rewriting history that's going around now. Rather then learn and move forward lots of people seem to prefer going back in time and judging history through today's lens.
  - edent 6y ago