16 ms·

> if you don't like it, yeah, leave the union, you're no worse off than you were before. Completely false. With the ways that union laws work, if the majority

by stale2002 6y ago

> if you don't like it, yeah, leave the union, you're no worse off than you were before. Completely false. With the ways that union laws work, if the majority of workers at a company unionize, then I have no choice but to be subject to their contract and fees. Most tech companies are not in right to work states, so I'd have to go along with the contract. That is how I would be worse off.

oarabbus_ 6y ago
>Most tech companies are not in right to work states, so I'd have to go along with the contract. Most tech companies are located in California, which is a right to work state.
- pxx 6y ago
  What? No it isn't. Smattering of links: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... https://legalbeagle.com/13720413-is-california-a-right-to-work-state.html https://legalbeagle.com/13720413-is-california-a-right-to-wo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#US_states_with_right-to-work_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#US_states_wi...
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Where are you that has laws constraining that you have to be a part of a particular union, sounds very Soviet (in the fascist, dictatorial sense).
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  Only 28 states have right-to-work laws. In the rest, unions can force you to join or not work at the company in question.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  Why is it bad to be forced to be part of a union and contribute dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to your employer's profits involuntarily?
  - nicharesuk 6y ago
    Wouldn't it be a win-win if the shareholders make a profit and I make a profit from my pay, vs. me being forced to pay union dues due to laws protecting unions bargaining power and ability to dictate who can and can't join a certain industry?
heavyset_go 6y ago
No one is forcing you to work a union job in the same way that no one is forcing you to work a job you don't like.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > No one is forcing you to work a union job The person asked if I was worse off or not. And I am. I am worse off in that I cannot stay at a job that becomes a union job, without having to pay the union. That is how I am worse off.
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    Why is it bad to be forced to contribute to union dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits involuntarily (as all employees are in for-profit enterprises)?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Give whatever moral arguments that you want. I will repeat once again. The person who I was responding to said " you're no worse off than you were before". This statement is not true, and I have explained exactly how I would be worse off. I would be worse off in that now I have to give money to the union, and I now have to be represented by their deals, and I don't want that. That is how I am worse off. I don't care about your moral arguments. Instead I care about what hurts or helps me.
      - djrobstep 6y ago
        But you're also worse off because your employment contributes to shareholder profits rather than your own wages. Why don't you care about that? Particularly when these profits are likely far higher than any union dues.
        stale2002 6y ago
        I will repeat again. The person claimed that I would not be worse off. And that person was wrong. And I have described specifically how I would be worse off. You keep trying to redirect to something that is not relevant. The relevant question was whether or not I would be worse off with a union. And the answer is that I have giving an exact answer as to how I would be worse off. Glad that you agree that the original person was wrong, and that I was right on how I would be worse off. Nothing that you said at all disagrees with me regarding this specific issue. You have made no statement that disagrees with the true fact that I would be worse off by having to be under the union contract." This conversation is about whether or not people are harmed by unions in this way, and bringing up irrelevant stuff does not change that. Nothing that you said is an actual convincing argument as for why unions do not harm me, when I have laid out specifically how it makes my situation worse.
AshWolfy 6y ago
Thats how you were already, working under a contract you had no input in
- stale2002 6y ago
  Even if you think this, it is less preferable for me to be subject to two masters that I have little input on, then just 1. That just makes the problem worse. And my evidence is any actual real life example of a union contract, which has many things that I do not support in it.

oarabbus_ 6y ago

>Most tech companies are not in right to work states, so I'd have to go along with the contract. Most tech companies are located in California, which is a right to work state.

pxx 6y ago
What? No it isn't. Smattering of links: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... https://legalbeagle.com/13720413-is-california-a-right-to-work-state.html https://legalbeagle.com/13720413-is-california-a-right-to-wo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#US_states_with_right-to-work_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#US_states_wi...

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Where are you that has laws constraining that you have to be a part of a particular union, sounds very Soviet (in the fascist, dictatorial sense).

RHSeeger 6y ago
Only 28 states have right-to-work laws. In the rest, unions can force you to join or not work at the company in question.
djrobstep 6y ago
Why is it bad to be forced to be part of a union and contribute dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to your employer's profits involuntarily?
- nicharesuk 6y ago
  Wouldn't it be a win-win if the shareholders make a profit and I make a profit from my pay, vs. me being forced to pay union dues due to laws protecting unions bargaining power and ability to dictate who can and can't join a certain industry?

heavyset_go 6y ago

No one is forcing you to work a union job in the same way that no one is forcing you to work a job you don't like.

stale2002 6y ago
> No one is forcing you to work a union job The person asked if I was worse off or not. And I am. I am worse off in that I cannot stay at a job that becomes a union job, without having to pay the union. That is how I am worse off.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  Why is it bad to be forced to contribute to union dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits involuntarily (as all employees are in for-profit enterprises)?
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Give whatever moral arguments that you want. I will repeat once again. The person who I was responding to said " you're no worse off than you were before". This statement is not true, and I have explained exactly how I would be worse off. I would be worse off in that now I have to give money to the union, and I now have to be represented by their deals, and I don't want that. That is how I am worse off. I don't care about your moral arguments. Instead I care about what hurts or helps me.
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      But you're also worse off because your employment contributes to shareholder profits rather than your own wages. Why don't you care about that? Particularly when these profits are likely far higher than any union dues.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        I will repeat again. The person claimed that I would not be worse off. And that person was wrong. And I have described specifically how I would be worse off. You keep trying to redirect to something that is not relevant. The relevant question was whether or not I would be worse off with a union. And the answer is that I have giving an exact answer as to how I would be worse off. Glad that you agree that the original person was wrong, and that I was right on how I would be worse off. Nothing that you said at all disagrees with me regarding this specific issue. You have made no statement that disagrees with the true fact that I would be worse off by having to be under the union contract." This conversation is about whether or not people are harmed by unions in this way, and bringing up irrelevant stuff does not change that. Nothing that you said is an actual convincing argument as for why unions do not harm me, when I have laid out specifically how it makes my situation worse.

AshWolfy 6y ago

Thats how you were already, working under a contract you had no input in

stale2002 6y ago
Even if you think this, it is less preferable for me to be subject to two masters that I have little input on, then just 1. That just makes the problem worse. And my evidence is any actual real life example of a union contract, which has many things that I do not support in it.