3 ms·
I reject your absolutist ideology. If it's a forced choice of with your or against you, then you've asked for against. Edit: With them or they'll do anything f
by Rule35 6y ago
I reject your absolutist ideology. If it's a forced choice of with your or against you, then you've asked for against.
Edit: With them or they'll do anything from downvote you to set your car on fire. This is why people don't believe you, or support you.
Look at the modern intellectual arguing the equivalent of Wickard v Filburn. Anti-union would be going out of my way to lobby my government to forbid unions. Neutral is just not supporting you because I can't tell if you have a valid case or not. As for being a coward, that's the modern unionist screaming slurs at other workers and beating them up in the parking lot.
The sad truth is that original unionists, who fought for safety in mines, etc, are being conflated with marxists who are really anti worker.
- tekromancr 6y agoI would posit that you aren't rejecting any ideology, you are being presented with the fact even inaction is a political choice, and that seems to upset you. That's okay, there are a lot of facts about reality that upset me, too! Unfortunately facts don't care about our feelings, and no amount of sulking about it will change the fact that so called union neutrality is an anti-union position. Not only is it anti-union, but kind of a cowardly anti-unionism, at that. It's wanting to be both anti-union, while also wanting to accept none of the social consequences that come with that position.
- Rule35 6y agoYour 'everything is connected, inaction is action' argument is only compelling if you can provide a counter-example. A place where your rule breaks down. A rule without exceptions, in a complex domain, is just wrong. Yes, we all breathe the same air. But at what point is you not fighting my battles with me reasonable disinterest - neutrality - rather than an active choice to hinder me? Clearly if you don't know me, and if you don't know the facts, etc... I obviously reject it sooner than you, but if you don't reject it at some point then it's ideology and I reject that out of hand.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoA union gains leverage by monopolizing the sale of labor to a company; a company gains leverage when they can buy labor elsewhere. If you don’t support the union, you are necessarily chipping away at their monopoly. There’s no action whereby your choice doesn’t change the balance of power between the two.
- Rule35 6y agoDid you try to catch a serial killer today? If not you helped kill their victim. Now either explain the limit to that logic or turn yourself in to the police.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoThe limit to the logic is that it only applies where you are forced to choose between zero sum options.
- Rule35 6y agoYeah, like deciding between spending your limited time on here or hunting a serial killer. Zero sum, son. You don't seem to have realized that you aren't the first group to use these arguments and tactics, or how badly they fail. Sadly only after exacting great societal consequences though.
- refurb 6y agoWhat you are describing is bullying, plain and simple. Similar to the other commenter I’ve seen unions use the same tactics as well.
- thomastjeffery 6y agoHere's the point you are missing: Neutrality can only be achieved by refusing to support both the union and the company. If you are working for the company without joining the union, then you are supporting the company's anti-union efforts. Remember, no one is forced to join a company just like no one is forced to join a union.