4 ms·

This whole debacle is sort of humorous. I fully support the rights of workers to unionize. The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobbe

This whole debacle is sort of humorous. I fully support the rights of workers to unionize. The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. This is incredibly unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights.

VictorPath 5y ago
So a mine exists and a bunch of heirs have a corporation. Through the corporation, a portion of the wealth miners create by mining from that mine goes to the heirs. The workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth organize and strike a deal that the company hires only union members. So the thing which is "unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights" is not what the heirs did, but what the workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth did. No questions about the province of the heirs. You're dealing with both these groups but questioning the paternity of only one of them, the ones actually doing all the work and creating all the wealth.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
- 5560675260 5y ago
  > doing all the work and creating all the wealth Miners extract resources from someone's else land, using someone's else tools to be sold by someone else via someone's else logistical chains. And that high valuation of a natural resource that keeps mine operational? Miners had nothing to do with it. What miners do here is spend their time to add value to existing resource. In most cases this is done voluntarily and with a fair compensation.
cool_dude85 5y ago
>The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. You are badly misinformed about what "right to work" is. In a union shop, the unionized "coerce" all employees in their bargaining units to participate, even in "right to work" states! Everyone is covered by the same contract! That's the whole point! Even in "right to work" states, everyone in the unit is coerced into participation by your understanding. The only thing "right to work" offers is that people covered by the contract may choose not to pay dues (or choose to forgo some portion of the dues). In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.
- dls2016 5y ago
  > In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract. It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    No; the libertarian perspective would be "everyone should negotiate their own contract".
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      I'm as far from a libertarian as I could be, but why should a libertarian think this? If you don't want to work for a company who has signed a contract with a labor union for a closed shop, you can go to a different company and negotiate your own. Surely I have the right as an individual to choose to join a closed shop, right?
      - dls2016 5y ago
        Entering into a contract with multiple people to form a corporation = fine Entering into a contract with multiple people to collectively bargain with a corporation = deprivation of human rights (according to some posts in this thread) At least the GP admitted that their problem really is just "that kind of contract".
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    That's because that's not a contract. Real contracts can only bind people who sign them, but in places that don't recognize right to work, you can be forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed.
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      You are making the same mistake as the post I replied to. You are "forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed" effectively everywhere in the US, not just in "right to work" states. If 51% of your co-workers agree, they will form a union, and that union will negotiate a contract on your behalf. You're in, baby. "Right to work" only covers whether you can be made to pay union dues as part of this arrangement.
dls2016 5y ago
Which other human rights are violated by representation dues? I can name dozens of corporations who have used their profits not to increase worker compensation, but instead to lobby directly against their workers. And the workers have no vote or voice in the matter. Google in the article, for instance. But think of all the other dubious lobbying corporations engage in. It's never discussed in this context because your pay check doesn't include a line item for "lobbying fees".
- exabrial 5y ago
  The right to your own wages
  - dls2016 5y ago
    Doesn't corporate lobbying also lessen your wages?
aylmao 5y ago
I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure being forced to pay union dues is not a violation of any human rights.
- exabrial 5y ago
  Forcing a person to pay something against their will is definitively a human rights violation. That's forced labor.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    Against their will? Didn't these employees choose to work at a closed shop? Don't they choose to continue their work there each new day?
  - aylmao 5y ago
    Again, I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure forced labour is forcing someone to work against their will, not charging a commission to work. People pay commissions to work all the time, they might agree with taxes, they might disagree with union dues, but regardless, I'm pretty sure it's not a human rights violation.

VictorPath 5y ago

So a mine exists and a bunch of heirs have a corporation. Through the corporation, a portion of the wealth miners create by mining from that mine goes to the heirs. The workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth organize and strike a deal that the company hires only union members. So the thing which is "unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights" is not what the heirs did, but what the workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth did. No questions about the province of the heirs. You're dealing with both these groups but questioning the paternity of only one of them, the ones actually doing all the work and creating all the wealth.

cuteboy19 5y ago
5560675260 5y ago
> doing all the work and creating all the wealth Miners extract resources from someone's else land, using someone's else tools to be sold by someone else via someone's else logistical chains. And that high valuation of a natural resource that keeps mine operational? Miners had nothing to do with it. What miners do here is spend their time to add value to existing resource. In most cases this is done voluntarily and with a fair compensation.

cool_dude85 5y ago

>The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. You are badly misinformed about what "right to work" is. In a union shop, the unionized "coerce" all employees in their bargaining units to participate, even in "right to work" states! Everyone is covered by the same contract! That's the whole point! Even in "right to work" states, everyone in the unit is coerced into participation by your understanding. The only thing "right to work" offers is that people covered by the contract may choose not to pay dues (or choose to forgo some portion of the dues). In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.

dls2016 5y ago
> In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract. It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  No; the libertarian perspective would be "everyone should negotiate their own contract".
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    I'm as far from a libertarian as I could be, but why should a libertarian think this? If you don't want to work for a company who has signed a contract with a labor union for a closed shop, you can go to a different company and negotiate your own. Surely I have the right as an individual to choose to join a closed shop, right?
    - dls2016 5y ago
      Entering into a contract with multiple people to form a corporation = fine Entering into a contract with multiple people to collectively bargain with a corporation = deprivation of human rights (according to some posts in this thread) At least the GP admitted that their problem really is just "that kind of contract".
- josephcsible 5y ago
  That's because that's not a contract. Real contracts can only bind people who sign them, but in places that don't recognize right to work, you can be forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    You are making the same mistake as the post I replied to. You are "forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed" effectively everywhere in the US, not just in "right to work" states. If 51% of your co-workers agree, they will form a union, and that union will negotiate a contract on your behalf. You're in, baby. "Right to work" only covers whether you can be made to pay union dues as part of this arrangement.

dls2016 5y ago

Which other human rights are violated by representation dues? I can name dozens of corporations who have used their profits not to increase worker compensation, but instead to lobby directly against their workers. And the workers have no vote or voice in the matter. Google in the article, for instance. But think of all the other dubious lobbying corporations engage in. It's never discussed in this context because your pay check doesn't include a line item for "lobbying fees".

exabrial 5y ago
The right to your own wages
- dls2016 5y ago
  Doesn't corporate lobbying also lessen your wages?

aylmao 5y ago

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure being forced to pay union dues is not a violation of any human rights.

exabrial 5y ago
Forcing a person to pay something against their will is definitively a human rights violation. That's forced labor.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  Against their will? Didn't these employees choose to work at a closed shop? Don't they choose to continue their work there each new day?
- aylmao 5y ago
  Again, I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure forced labour is forcing someone to work against their will, not charging a commission to work. People pay commissions to work all the time, they might agree with taxes, they might disagree with union dues, but regardless, I'm pretty sure it's not a human rights violation.