3 ms·

Unions are inherently political. They do things like fund politicians - maybe politicians with views you find offensive. And they obviously offer to represent

Unions are inherently political. They do things like fund politicians - maybe politicians with views you find offensive. And they obviously offer to represent your interests but really of course they end up representing their own and powerful people’s.

mabub24 5y ago
You've kind of shifted the debate towards over whether any large institution or organization should be allowed to finance or donate or "fund" political campaigns to the degree that they can at present in the US. I would say they shouldn't be able to. Many other liberal democracies do not allow it. While I support unions in many cases, I would say that many of the arguments against a decision like the one made in Citizens United in favor of unfettered amounts apply to corporations and unions equally. I found Justice Stevens dissenting opinion extremely convincing compared to the concurring and majority opinion. He raised things like: they do not vote, they "survive" the lifespan of the normal human, they disrupt the spirit of democracy and the conceptual underpinnings of liberal democracy, and they manipulate speech into a concept of power and wealth rather than expression and communication. So, obviously they're political, but in the sense that they are politically active. And so are corporations. Take away the ability to fund, donate to, or finance, politicians and political campaigns from corporations and unions, and you still end up with a situation where unions collectively protect workers from arbitrary change.
betterunix2 5y ago
...and all of that is true, to a much greater extent, of the corporations whose workers unions represent. Do you think Amazon warehouse workers agree with the views of every politician whose campaign received a contribution from Amazon? I am a big fan of taking money out of politics and banning campaign contributions from unions, corporations, PACs, lobbying firms, and basically any entity that is not an individual citizen. Unfortunately, until that happens, unions must engage with political campaigns to counter corporate political engagement. Corporations push for politicians to pass union-busting laws and to block pro-union laws; unions push for politicians to block such union-busting and to pass pro-union laws. As for your other comment, I have to wonder whose interests you think unions are representing when they actually sit down to negotiate pay, benefits, work rules, etc. Do you think that when a union rep says, "No, we need a healthcare plan that has a lower deductible," they are doing so because some politician somewhere benefits from it? Do you think "power people" tell a union that, actually, employees should have their wages adjusted according to both their seniority and the local cost of living? The day-to-day business of a union is its workers' interest, just like the day-to-day business of a corporation is its shareholders' interest, regardless of campaign contributions or support for politicians. If the workers feel that their interests are poorly represented, they can vote for different union leaders; likewise, when shareholders feel that their interests are poorly represented they can elect a different board of directors.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  For example in the UK unions funded politicians who voted to invade Iraq. Which worker was that in benefit of? And powerful people in unions can have regressive ideas. For example pay based on seniority is ageist. At the end of the day a union is a group of bullies like any other.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    What else did those politicians vote on? If your claim is that the union funded politicians because of their support for the invasion of Iraq, that is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. Let's see your proof. [Edit: At the end of the day, union leaders are elected by union members, and if the members do not like how their contract is negotiated they can elect different leaders or otherwise make their voices heard. Call it "bullying" if you want, but I fail to see how non-unionized workers are not being bullied by the companies they work for, given how one-sided negotiations between individual workers and companies are.]
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Why does it matter why they funded them? Why are they funding them all all? What is going on the unions are funding one particular political viewpoint?
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        Read the post you replied to; unions fund politicians who are friendly toward unions because corporations fund politicians who are antagonistic toward unions (or, if we are being charitable, let's say "politicians who are friendly to corporate interests").
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        They’re friendly forwards unions… oh but by the way they’re also anti-Semitic. No thanks. I don’t want to fund that. Imagine if for example you were a Green or a Liberal. The idea of funding Labour could be seriously offensive to you.

mabub24 5y ago

You've kind of shifted the debate towards over whether any large institution or organization should be allowed to finance or donate or "fund" political campaigns to the degree that they can at present in the US. I would say they shouldn't be able to. Many other liberal democracies do not allow it. While I support unions in many cases, I would say that many of the arguments against a decision like the one made in Citizens United in favor of unfettered amounts apply to corporations and unions equally. I found Justice Stevens dissenting opinion extremely convincing compared to the concurring and majority opinion. He raised things like: they do not vote, they "survive" the lifespan of the normal human, they disrupt the spirit of democracy and the conceptual underpinnings of liberal democracy, and they manipulate speech into a concept of power and wealth rather than expression and communication. So, obviously they're political, but in the sense that they are politically active. And so are corporations. Take away the ability to fund, donate to, or finance, politicians and political campaigns from corporations and unions, and you still end up with a situation where unions collectively protect workers from arbitrary change.

betterunix2 5y ago

...and all of that is true, to a much greater extent, of the corporations whose workers unions represent. Do you think Amazon warehouse workers agree with the views of every politician whose campaign received a contribution from Amazon? I am a big fan of taking money out of politics and banning campaign contributions from unions, corporations, PACs, lobbying firms, and basically any entity that is not an individual citizen. Unfortunately, until that happens, unions must engage with political campaigns to counter corporate political engagement. Corporations push for politicians to pass union-busting laws and to block pro-union laws; unions push for politicians to block such union-busting and to pass pro-union laws. As for your other comment, I have to wonder whose interests you think unions are representing when they actually sit down to negotiate pay, benefits, work rules, etc. Do you think that when a union rep says, "No, we need a healthcare plan that has a lower deductible," they are doing so because some politician somewhere benefits from it? Do you think "power people" tell a union that, actually, employees should have their wages adjusted according to both their seniority and the local cost of living? The day-to-day business of a union is its workers' interest, just like the day-to-day business of a corporation is its shareholders' interest, regardless of campaign contributions or support for politicians. If the workers feel that their interests are poorly represented, they can vote for different union leaders; likewise, when shareholders feel that their interests are poorly represented they can elect a different board of directors.

chrisseaton 5y ago
For example in the UK unions funded politicians who voted to invade Iraq. Which worker was that in benefit of? And powerful people in unions can have regressive ideas. For example pay based on seniority is ageist. At the end of the day a union is a group of bullies like any other.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  What else did those politicians vote on? If your claim is that the union funded politicians because of their support for the invasion of Iraq, that is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. Let's see your proof. [Edit: At the end of the day, union leaders are elected by union members, and if the members do not like how their contract is negotiated they can elect different leaders or otherwise make their voices heard. Call it "bullying" if you want, but I fail to see how non-unionized workers are not being bullied by the companies they work for, given how one-sided negotiations between individual workers and companies are.]
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Why does it matter why they funded them? Why are they funding them all all? What is going on the unions are funding one particular political viewpoint?
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      Read the post you replied to; unions fund politicians who are friendly toward unions because corporations fund politicians who are antagonistic toward unions (or, if we are being charitable, let's say "politicians who are friendly to corporate interests").
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        They’re friendly forwards unions… oh but by the way they’re also anti-Semitic. No thanks. I don’t want to fund that. Imagine if for example you were a Green or a Liberal. The idea of funding Labour could be seriously offensive to you.