5 ms·
I disagree. It should be a free market. If the employees don’t like their treatment they should leave and take a different job. I am sure there is a UAW job out
by cwhiz 6y ago
I disagree. It should be a free market. If the employees don’t like their treatment they should leave and take a different job. I am sure there is a UAW job out there to be had.
The most likely outcome from this is that Tesla moves more and more production out of a California and into a more business friendly state, such as Texas.
- kevinmchugh 6y agoThe NLRB has jurisdiction in Texas
- ausbah 6y agocalling it a free market is laughable naive. the market is lopsided in favor of businesses because many laws at the state and federal are explicitly pro-business and anti-union; see "right to work laws", the 1947 Taft-Harley act, etc. - especially over the past 20 years and saying workers should just go and join a union backed job is even sillier when <15% of all full time workers are apart of a union [1] [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
- lukejduncan 6y agoRight to work is pro employee. If unions want membership they shouldn’t be able to coerce it. They should have to earn it and compete for it. If a union can’t survive based on voluntary membership then that tells you something.
- ausbah 6y agoit is the state infringing in the market on the side of business and capital by restricting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers workers are less well off but it's ok because "individualism"
- lukejduncan 6y agoNo one is being restricted from bargaining collectively. They’re just being given the choice to opt out. Unions just get upset because they lose their monopoly status to police workers voices who disagree with their position and politics.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cwhiz 6y agoRight to work is only anti union because it allows employees to choose whether or not to join a union. Forcing an employee to join a union is absolutely not pro-employee.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoRight to work is not pro-business. It simply reduces some of the extra-contractual powers that labor laws give unions. These laws are violating the right of business to freely contract, while reducing the opportunity for those who don't have unionized jobs to compete for those jobs. So Right to Work is anti-'exploitation of businesses and outside workers'.
- jmjanzen 6y agoSpreading democracy to the workforce does not make the market less "free." It just makes it easier to manipulate by the few.
- cwhiz 6y agoDemocracy in the workforce would be giving employees an option to join a union, or not.
- anoncake 6y agoNo, that is not democracy. Democratic decisions, by definition, are made by multiple people together.
- cwhiz 6y agoWhat you’re describing is much closer to tyranny.
- anoncake 6y agoThe hell? Any decisions that involve more than one person involve tyranny?
- tacitusarc 6y agoThe tyranny of the majority is perhaps the reference?
- anoncake 6y agoSure you could count every instance of someone not getting their will, which is unavoidable when decisions affect more than one person, as tyranny. But I don't think that's a very useful definition.
- 6y ago
- jellicle 6y agoI'm glad to hear you are calling for employees to be able to freely form a union and strike (which employees are mostly banned from doing today).
- whimsicalism 6y agoIn the free market, should businesses not be able to freely agree to a contract? Most anti-union laws limit the types of contracts private actors are able to voluntarily consent to, which seems less of a "free market."
- joppy 6y agoSo in a "free" market, one side has all the bargaining power and the other side has none of it? What does a free market mean to you?
- cwhiz 6y agoIt means the employees can choose to leave and choose whether they want to join a union.
- Ericson2314 6y agoThis free market you speak of is in fact fairly sensitive to initial conditions, and will never reconcile the interests of the rich and poor on its own.
- URSpider94 6y agoWhere, exactly, are people who live in the SF Bay Area going to find a UAW job?
- joshuamorton 6y agoOr Alabama? Which would never get a union... Unions are an aspect of a free market. They're an organization of individuals with a common goal in exactly the same way corporations are.
- missedthecue 6y agoUnions are anti-free market. They are monopoly cartels protected by the federal government. If people who sell peanut butter joined together to sell their products at a higher price, the DOJ would bust them up. If people who sell labor join together to do the same type of rent seeking, congress sets up the NLRB to protect them.
- joshuamorton 6y agoA company is, last I checked, free to reject the union entirely and fire everyone (if they strike). Not to mention your argument should be that cartels should be legal, not that unions should not be.
- missedthecue 6y agoYou may want to check again. A company cannot refuse to bargain with the union, and strikers cannot be fired while on strike.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThey can however be replaced, in which case the company doesn't need to rehire the striking workers. Potato/potato. That's not true if the company is in violation of an existing contract though, then the company is breaking the law and must rehire everyone, but I'll reiterate: they're breaking the law to begin with.