4 ms·

> But could you imagine if we spoke about corporations in this manner? "I've worked for corporations and they are a mixed bag. In practice, they often abuse the

by slibhb 5y ago

> But could you imagine if we spoke about corporations in this manner? "I've worked for corporations and they are a mixed bag. In practice, they often abuse their employees. I've personally witnessed bosses who contributed nothing for years and just played politics." Who doesn't talk about corporations in this manner? Doesn't everyone? > Unions are democratically controlled worker organizations. Like democratic nations, they can contain abusers, they can be inefficient, and they can fail to solve problems effectively. But like democratic nations, they provide a powerful resistance to authoritarian abuse and on balance improve the quality of life for their people. Democracy doesn't make sense in every situation. It makes sense for countries because we are born into citizenship. If you dislike a company you can just leave. In situations where you can't "just leave," unions may make sense. Google is not an example of this. Everyone who works at Google could leave and find a job elsewhere tomorrow.

pydry 5y ago
>Who doesn't talk about corporations in this manner? Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? No. Bit of a fringe view, that. The rule is, if it's a court, company, government, NGO or serbian tennis club then corruption should be met with reform. In the predominantly investor owned media, corruption in unions leads to calls to abolish them. It's standard.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all?" People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values; they do not have that option with unionization. If the union allows workers to not join the union, not charge dues for being an non-member, and not support them, then nobody would have a problem with them.
  - pydry 5y ago
    It's almost impossible for me to work for a corporation whose values align with mine. It's really really easy to work in a non unionized workplace if thats what you want.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    FWIW in the UK it's a legal right not to join or support unions (closed shops are outlawed), and unions can't charge non-members dues (no agency shops either). Lots of people (both company-owners and ordinary citizens) have problems with them anyway. Somebody in my industry recently left the union angrily and publicly, then subsequently criticised the union for not representing their interests after they'd gone. There's no accounting for folk.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Yes, the UK has never been a place with strong freedom of speech and contract protections, so it makes sense they would outlaw business owners from voluntarily entering into security clause agreements with their employees.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    ? This seems like a perfectly symmetric arrangement to me. > People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values And so if that corporation has signed a security clause agreement with a union, they are free to not work with that corporation. Unions do not force workers to join a union shop, just as those people are free to not work for corporations whose mission is incompatible with their values, they are also free to not work for corporations subject to a union security clause that their owners voluntarily signed.

by slibhb 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

>Who doesn't talk about corporations in this manner? Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? No. Bit of a fringe view, that. The rule is, if it's a court, company, government, NGO or serbian tennis club then corruption should be met with reform. In the predominantly investor owned media, corruption in unions leads to calls to abolish them. It's standard.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all?" People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values; they do not have that option with unionization. If the union allows workers to not join the union, not charge dues for being an non-member, and not support them, then nobody would have a problem with them.
- pydry 5y ago
  It's almost impossible for me to work for a corporation whose values align with mine. It's really really easy to work in a non unionized workplace if thats what you want.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  FWIW in the UK it's a legal right not to join or support unions (closed shops are outlawed), and unions can't charge non-members dues (no agency shops either). Lots of people (both company-owners and ordinary citizens) have problems with them anyway. Somebody in my industry recently left the union angrily and publicly, then subsequently criticised the union for not representing their interests after they'd gone. There's no accounting for folk.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Yes, the UK has never been a place with strong freedom of speech and contract protections, so it makes sense they would outlaw business owners from voluntarily entering into security clause agreements with their employees.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  ? This seems like a perfectly symmetric arrangement to me. > People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values And so if that corporation has signed a security clause agreement with a union, they are free to not work with that corporation. Unions do not force workers to join a union shop, just as those people are free to not work for corporations whose mission is incompatible with their values, they are also free to not work for corporations subject to a union security clause that their owners voluntarily signed.