3 ms·

Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some u

Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.

djrobstep 5y ago
Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?
- morgante 5y ago
  The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?
    - limelight 5y ago
      I wouldn't consider shareholders good or bad, but neutral. The revenue you send them today is compensation for the capital they provided to get the business to where it is today (or, in many cases, liquidity for earlier employees who built the company). They provided meaningful value to secure that revenue stream. Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.
      - djrobstep 5y ago
        It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other?
        morgante 5y ago
        > It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. At best, unions provide a redistributive function (transferring income from high-performing to low-performing employees). In practice, their net benefit to employees is negative. > The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other? The shareholders own the company. They bought it from the original founders and employees who built it. Without shareholders, there would be no company. Unions are just mafia bosses who showed up later demanding to be paid. They were never involved in value creation.
        djrobstep 5y ago
        Without the employees, there would also be no company. You cannot work at the company without being forced to generate money for shareholders. You also cannot at the company without generating money for the union (if membership is compulsory). Once again, why is one bad and the other one good? Why is one a “mafia boss” and the other legitimate? It’s identical compulsion either way.
        kortilla 5y ago
        > Without the employees, there would also be no company. This is incorrect. A company is more than the employees. See holding companies or any of the many companies that have gone through mass layoffs/restructuring. > You cannot work at the company without being forced to generate money for shareholders. I’m not forced, the whole point of wanting to work for a company is to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement where you make them money and get money in return. > You also cannot at the company without generating money for the union This is a third party that has no business interfering with the agreement I’m trying to enter into with a company to sell it my labor. > It’s identical compulsion either way. I don’t think you know what “compulsion” means. One of the things is voluntary, one is not.
    - chernevik 5y ago
      Shareholders provide capital, and a management function by hiring management.
afavour 5y ago
Huh? If there’s no union you’re forced to accept whatever contract the company boss decides upon. At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. In either situation if you don’t like the end result you can just quit.
- morgante 5y ago
  Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome. > At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.
    - eru 5y ago
      Careful. You are fighting a strawman here. First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'. Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences. > [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves. Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation. Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.

Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.

djrobstep 5y ago

Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?

morgante 5y ago
The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?
  - limelight 5y ago
    I wouldn't consider shareholders good or bad, but neutral. The revenue you send them today is compensation for the capital they provided to get the business to where it is today (or, in many cases, liquidity for earlier employees who built the company). They provided meaningful value to secure that revenue stream. Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other?
      - morgante 5y ago
        > It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. At best, unions provide a redistributive function (transferring income from high-performing to low-performing employees). In practice, their net benefit to employees is negative. > The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other? The shareholders own the company. They bought it from the original founders and employees who built it. Without shareholders, there would be no company. Unions are just mafia bosses who showed up later demanding to be paid. They were never involved in value creation.
        djrobstep 5y ago
        Without the employees, there would also be no company. You cannot work at the company without being forced to generate money for shareholders. You also cannot at the company without generating money for the union (if membership is compulsory). Once again, why is one bad and the other one good? Why is one a “mafia boss” and the other legitimate? It’s identical compulsion either way.
        kortilla 5y ago
        > Without the employees, there would also be no company. This is incorrect. A company is more than the employees. See holding companies or any of the many companies that have gone through mass layoffs/restructuring. > You cannot work at the company without being forced to generate money for shareholders. I’m not forced, the whole point of wanting to work for a company is to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement where you make them money and get money in return. > You also cannot at the company without generating money for the union This is a third party that has no business interfering with the agreement I’m trying to enter into with a company to sell it my labor. > It’s identical compulsion either way. I don’t think you know what “compulsion” means. One of the things is voluntary, one is not.
  - chernevik 5y ago
    Shareholders provide capital, and a management function by hiring management.

afavour 5y ago

Huh? If there’s no union you’re forced to accept whatever contract the company boss decides upon. At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. In either situation if you don’t like the end result you can just quit.

morgante 5y ago
Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome. > At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.
  - eru 5y ago
    Careful. You are fighting a strawman here. First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'. Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences. > [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves. Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation. Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.