4 ms·

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 a

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.
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues. Why not give a straight answer? To address your better off vs worse off question: You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues I said nothing of the sort. Instead I responded to someone who claimed that unions make me no worse off. And I have described how that is false. That is the only thing that I have said. Please do not put words into my mouth or say that I said things, when I did not say them. Can you please stop lying about me saying anything, when I have been extremely clear regarding my original statement? It seems like you do not disagree with me that the original person is wrong though. > You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job. There are many things in actual real life examples of union contracts that I would strongly oppose. And no, I will not accept you talking about some hypothetical union contract that does not exist, where you claim that this non standard union contract, that has none of the bad things that I brought up, would help. The only thing that I will accept as arguments, as for why unions are good or bad, is actual real life examples of contracts that have been enacted in the real world, because anything else is just a story that someone made up in their head. And there are many examples of concrete real union contracts that I would absolutely not support. > Why not give a straight answer? A straight answer to things that you are lying about, that I did not say? I have already given you a straight answer about exactly what I believe, and that I have made no comments on any completely irreverent thing that do not disagree with what I said.
        djrobstep 6y ago
        > I said nothing of the sort. You don't need to say it directly. It's obvious from your tone that you're bothered. > Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job. You don't want higher pay?
kelnos 6y ago
Huh? Contributing to shareholder profits is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has shareholders. Being forced to pay union dues when you've decided not to be a part of that union is literal theft.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  Huh? Contributing to union dues is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has compulsory union membership.

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.
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues. Why not give a straight answer? To address your better off vs worse off question: You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues I said nothing of the sort. Instead I responded to someone who claimed that unions make me no worse off. And I have described how that is false. That is the only thing that I have said. Please do not put words into my mouth or say that I said things, when I did not say them. Can you please stop lying about me saying anything, when I have been extremely clear regarding my original statement? It seems like you do not disagree with me that the original person is wrong though. > You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job. There are many things in actual real life examples of union contracts that I would strongly oppose. And no, I will not accept you talking about some hypothetical union contract that does not exist, where you claim that this non standard union contract, that has none of the bad things that I brought up, would help. The only thing that I will accept as arguments, as for why unions are good or bad, is actual real life examples of contracts that have been enacted in the real world, because anything else is just a story that someone made up in their head. And there are many examples of concrete real union contracts that I would absolutely not support. > Why not give a straight answer? A straight answer to things that you are lying about, that I did not say? I have already given you a straight answer about exactly what I believe, and that I have made no comments on any completely irreverent thing that do not disagree with what I said.
      - djrobstep 6y ago
        > I said nothing of the sort. You don't need to say it directly. It's obvious from your tone that you're bothered. > Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job. You don't want higher pay?

kelnos 6y ago

Huh? Contributing to shareholder profits is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has shareholders. Being forced to pay union dues when you've decided not to be a part of that union is literal theft.

djrobstep 6y ago
Huh? Contributing to union dues is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has compulsory union membership.