5 ms·

Why is it bad to be forced to deal with the union and contribute to union dues, but fine to be forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder prof

Why is it bad to be forced to deal with the union and contribute to union dues, but fine to be forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits?

educaysean 5y ago
Why is it bad? It's bad because it takes away freedom and agency from the working class, and workers rights is something I care about.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  Why does being forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits not take away freedom and agency from the working class?
  - educaysean 5y ago
    When did I make this claim? I hate seeing these snarky takes on HN. Lots of things take away agency from the working class: like employer-centric insurance system, complex and regressive taxes, etc. But you already knew these things and you also knew that the topic on hand was about unions. God forbid anyone say anything critical about THAT. If you have a point to make, get right to it instead of hiding behind snark. Edit: nevermind guy. I can see others have already tried. Cheers.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      Where's the snark? I'm asking you why if you're opposed to mandatory contribution of union dues by employees, you're not similarly opposed to mandatory contribution to shareholder profits by employees. It's a 100% genuine question.
      - BuckRogers 5y ago
        Your point is actually very interesting to me. I've never heard that before. I get it- maybe I "don't wanna" contribute to x, y, or z. What right do I have to do about those things? That "takes away my agency and freedom", right? I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involved, you can just find another job! Same solution I'm presented if I prefer profits to go into my pocket, rather than someone else's.
        djrobstep 5y ago
        Thanks, I’m glad somebody has grasped the point I’m making - which is that the whole system is built around coercion, so singling out one arbitrary part of it as involuntary is completely inconsistent and ideological.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  I'm not sure I get that, really. If you care about the material conditions of workers today, as they are experiencing them, the greatest threat to their agency by far is the asset owners they work for. There is probably an abstract, theoretical future where worker freedom is significantly curtailed by union power, I guess. But being more concerned with that hypothetical than with the genuine exploitation that is the baseline for low wage labor doesn't read as caring about worker rights to me.
  - educaysean 5y ago
    I assume you're writing this from the viewpoint that I consider unions to be ineffective or evil, even. I am not. I share your concerns regarding the owners whose powers often go unchecked in corporate America, and I completely agree that we're reaching dangerous levels. But I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. No, the anecdote I brought up is, in fact, the least hypothetical thing in this conversation thread. My wife examined the union pamphlet that was handed to her, decided that the union did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to pay the union dues. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever, and actively made her conditions worse by heaping on unwanted taxes that she felt was also priced disproportionately. Yet she had no voice in this matter. Organize a union, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your union deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. Fight the greedy owners, great. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the union. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair. The fact that workers are already being exploited by greedy corporations does not excuse bad union behaviors, period.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      No, I wasn't quite assuming you are anti-union, but that is one of the most common bits of anti-union propaganda. There's a true issue there but I don't think it's proportional to the amount of time this specific problem gets in these discussions. I think it comes down to what you expect from people who are being treated poorly. Do you only accept "pure" moral acts as valid? Is small unfairness to a few justified to prevent large unfairness to many? It seems like we have different answers to these questions, but I don't think either can be dismissed as inherently against worker freedom or agency. I care very very much about practical power for people who need it right now. I care a lot less about abstract freedoms that material conditions prevent people from being able to act on.

Why is it bad to be forced to deal with the union and contribute to union dues, but fine to be forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits?

educaysean 5y ago

Why is it bad? It's bad because it takes away freedom and agency from the working class, and workers rights is something I care about.

djrobstep 5y ago
Why does being forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits not take away freedom and agency from the working class?
- educaysean 5y ago
  When did I make this claim? I hate seeing these snarky takes on HN. Lots of things take away agency from the working class: like employer-centric insurance system, complex and regressive taxes, etc. But you already knew these things and you also knew that the topic on hand was about unions. God forbid anyone say anything critical about THAT. If you have a point to make, get right to it instead of hiding behind snark. Edit: nevermind guy. I can see others have already tried. Cheers.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    Where's the snark? I'm asking you why if you're opposed to mandatory contribution of union dues by employees, you're not similarly opposed to mandatory contribution to shareholder profits by employees. It's a 100% genuine question.
    - BuckRogers 5y ago
      Your point is actually very interesting to me. I've never heard that before. I get it- maybe I "don't wanna" contribute to x, y, or z. What right do I have to do about those things? That "takes away my agency and freedom", right? I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involved, you can just find another job! Same solution I'm presented if I prefer profits to go into my pocket, rather than someone else's.
      - djrobstep 5y ago
        Thanks, I’m glad somebody has grasped the point I’m making - which is that the whole system is built around coercion, so singling out one arbitrary part of it as involuntary is completely inconsistent and ideological.
giraffe_lady 5y ago
I'm not sure I get that, really. If you care about the material conditions of workers today, as they are experiencing them, the greatest threat to their agency by far is the asset owners they work for. There is probably an abstract, theoretical future where worker freedom is significantly curtailed by union power, I guess. But being more concerned with that hypothetical than with the genuine exploitation that is the baseline for low wage labor doesn't read as caring about worker rights to me.
- educaysean 5y ago
  I assume you're writing this from the viewpoint that I consider unions to be ineffective or evil, even. I am not. I share your concerns regarding the owners whose powers often go unchecked in corporate America, and I completely agree that we're reaching dangerous levels. But I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. No, the anecdote I brought up is, in fact, the least hypothetical thing in this conversation thread. My wife examined the union pamphlet that was handed to her, decided that the union did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to pay the union dues. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever, and actively made her conditions worse by heaping on unwanted taxes that she felt was also priced disproportionately. Yet she had no voice in this matter. Organize a union, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your union deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. Fight the greedy owners, great. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the union. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair. The fact that workers are already being exploited by greedy corporations does not excuse bad union behaviors, period.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    No, I wasn't quite assuming you are anti-union, but that is one of the most common bits of anti-union propaganda. There's a true issue there but I don't think it's proportional to the amount of time this specific problem gets in these discussions. I think it comes down to what you expect from people who are being treated poorly. Do you only accept "pure" moral acts as valid? Is small unfairness to a few justified to prevent large unfairness to many? It seems like we have different answers to these questions, but I don't think either can be dismissed as inherently against worker freedom or agency. I care very very much about practical power for people who need it right now. I care a lot less about abstract freedoms that material conditions prevent people from being able to act on.