4 ms·

I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non ri

I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. IF the worker wants to work for that employer, he can only do so via the union. No way for the worker to work for the employer and not wanting to do absolutely nothing with the union.

tablespoon 6y ago
>> By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can choose a different company, by the same token you can choose a different union by choosing a different company. > I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. That's a distinction without a difference. If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. It's just another condition of employment, just like all the other conditions of employment you'd have to abide by without a union.
- hnunionthrow 6y ago
  Which basically reinforces GP's point about it being a monopoly? > If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Why can't workers have a choice - whoever sees the union's being a better fit can join the n number of unions operating at a single employer. Whoever wants to remain free from the union can choose not to join, and negotiate with the employer directly.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all. The employer used its "monopoly" over its workplace to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard.
    - hnunionthrow 6y ago
      > Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all. Most employers will allow changing teams/managers internally. Also, you can discuss it with your employer and if you can convince them that you will be able to be productive and relevant without the need for a manager, some employers will actually entertain this request. Several startups actually have a very flattish structure and very loosely defined hierarchy. > The employer used its "monopoly" to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard. It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is clearly different, because it is not the employer's choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign managers to employees. It is an employer's choice/will/culture. In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do anything to change that. In your "forced management" example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try to make changes in your existing workplace with the possibility of some success, or find a new workplace.
      - tablespoon 6y ago
        > Most employers will allow changing teams/managers internally. So? It's totally at the employer's discretion, and there are a million other things that are non-negotiable. > It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is clearly different, because it is not the employer's choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign managers to employees. It is an employer's choice/will/culture. Do you oppose all labor law? If it's "the employer's choice/will" to employ young children in dangerous conditions, do you oppose the "legal binding" prevents them from doing that? > In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do anything to change that. In your "forced management" example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try to make changes in your existing workplace with the possibility of some success, or find a new workplace. That's not actually true. If the worker's unhappy, they can work with their coworkers to decertify the union. However, if their coworkers are happy with it, then maybe that guy should just get another job. It's not like union shops are pervasive and unavoidable. They're actually pretty rare these days.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Sorry, should've been more explicit, but I wanted to say that a union creates a workforce monopoly. Once an employer can no longer hire non-unionized employees, it has to either surrender to the union requirements or close altogether. This is a monopoly in its best.

tablespoon 6y ago

>> By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can choose a different company, by the same token you can choose a different union by choosing a different company. > I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. That's a distinction without a difference. If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. It's just another condition of employment, just like all the other conditions of employment you'd have to abide by without a union.

hnunionthrow 6y ago
Which basically reinforces GP's point about it being a monopoly? > If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Why can't workers have a choice - whoever sees the union's being a better fit can join the n number of unions operating at a single employer. Whoever wants to remain free from the union can choose not to join, and negotiate with the employer directly.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all. The employer used its "monopoly" over its workplace to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard.
  - hnunionthrow 6y ago
    > Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all. Most employers will allow changing teams/managers internally. Also, you can discuss it with your employer and if you can convince them that you will be able to be productive and relevant without the need for a manager, some employers will actually entertain this request. Several startups actually have a very flattish structure and very loosely defined hierarchy. > The employer used its "monopoly" to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard. It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is clearly different, because it is not the employer's choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign managers to employees. It is an employer's choice/will/culture. In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do anything to change that. In your "forced management" example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try to make changes in your existing workplace with the possibility of some success, or find a new workplace.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Most employers will allow changing teams/managers internally. So? It's totally at the employer's discretion, and there are a million other things that are non-negotiable. > It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is clearly different, because it is not the employer's choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign managers to employees. It is an employer's choice/will/culture. Do you oppose all labor law? If it's "the employer's choice/will" to employ young children in dangerous conditions, do you oppose the "legal binding" prevents them from doing that? > In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do anything to change that. In your "forced management" example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try to make changes in your existing workplace with the possibility of some success, or find a new workplace. That's not actually true. If the worker's unhappy, they can work with their coworkers to decertify the union. However, if their coworkers are happy with it, then maybe that guy should just get another job. It's not like union shops are pervasive and unavoidable. They're actually pretty rare these days.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

Sorry, should've been more explicit, but I wanted to say that a union creates a workforce monopoly. Once an employer can no longer hire non-unionized employees, it has to either surrender to the union requirements or close altogether. This is a monopoly in its best.