4 ms·

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 wh

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.
- educaysean 5y ago
  I think we reached a good point for the conversation. You're correct in your assessment: I do place a lot of faith and values in empowering individual freedom and agency, so any brush with authoritarian entities usually leave me grumpy. I hope for humanities sake that public opinion of unions in America never devolve into something like that of HOAs. Thanks for engaging, and have a good one.
  - BuckRogers 5y ago
    You're conflating democracy and capitalism. In a free and democratic society, individual freedom and agency is imperative. Capitalism is a top-down dictatorship, a mini-monarchy that anyone with money can spin up. You can't try to misappropriate ideals meant for humanity in general, to a system that's a dictatorship. One you need to involve yourself in just to survive. That's why there's unions, to help level the bargaining table. Otherwise there's too much power on one side, the one holding all the cards/capital. It stops the race to the bottom.
djrobstep 5y ago
A very similar thing happened to my wife. My wife examined the company mission statement that was handed to her, decided that the company did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to contribute to shareholder profits. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever. Yet she had no voice in this matter. Organize a corporation, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your corporation deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the shareholder profit contribution scheme. 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.

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.

educaysean 5y ago
I think we reached a good point for the conversation. You're correct in your assessment: I do place a lot of faith and values in empowering individual freedom and agency, so any brush with authoritarian entities usually leave me grumpy. I hope for humanities sake that public opinion of unions in America never devolve into something like that of HOAs. Thanks for engaging, and have a good one.
- BuckRogers 5y ago
  You're conflating democracy and capitalism. In a free and democratic society, individual freedom and agency is imperative. Capitalism is a top-down dictatorship, a mini-monarchy that anyone with money can spin up. You can't try to misappropriate ideals meant for humanity in general, to a system that's a dictatorship. One you need to involve yourself in just to survive. That's why there's unions, to help level the bargaining table. Otherwise there's too much power on one side, the one holding all the cards/capital. It stops the race to the bottom.

djrobstep 5y ago

A very similar thing happened to my wife. My wife examined the company mission statement that was handed to her, decided that the company did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to contribute to shareholder profits. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever. Yet she had no voice in this matter. Organize a corporation, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your corporation deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the shareholder profit contribution scheme. 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.