4 ms·

I mean, yes, we all know that democracy can point enough guns to force me to do anything. The question is whether that's where we want to ethically go as socie

I mean, yes, we all know that democracy can point enough guns to force me to do anything. The question is whether that's where we want to ethically go as society, not whether the Collective has the might.

TheRealPomax 4y ago
Careful not to strawman: you exaggerated the idea of having to join a union in order to work a particular job, into being coerced by your government, and now you're attacking the idea of being coerced by your government. You're no longer commenting on unions. Let's get back on track: Americans overwhelmingly clearly need unions because employment and contract laws do not protect individuals (including those self-employed) anywhere near to the degree that it protects groups covered by collective agreement contracts. When we drill down, what I suspect we'll find is that what you oppose is having to sacrifice part of your salary for something you won't reap the benefits of. And that'd be a fair concern: America has a huge wage problem that's only been getting worse over the last half-century, where some jobs are now decadently overpaid, while most jobs are criminally underpaid as to not even be a living wage despite full time employment. So here's the irony: the only two ways to solve that problem are to enact laws that force companies into paying true living wages, which we can comfortably say cannot happen given the farce that is US politics, or through collective agreements that force companies into paying fair wages because they won't have a workforce if they don't. Which requires unions. With the ultimate irony of course being that the only way to make sure those union don't forget about your needs (e.g. ensuring enough salary bands so you won't go down in pay, ensuring the due scheme is fair, ensuring there are clear restrictions on how the dues get spent so that being the head of the union isn't a retirement plan of its own) is to join one and help steer it through active participation.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  > what I suspect we'll find is that what you oppose is having to sacrifice part of your salary for something you won't reap the benefits Exclusive representation IS government coercion! Unless you're in a right-to-work state, the government forbids an employee from working for an employer outside a union, if the workforce is unionized. And the only way the government enforces any rule is, when push comes to shove, the threat of violence if you break the rules. That's the point of government! re financials: I think you should "ask", rather than "suspect". And no, this is not primarily financial. Yes, I want to get more money for working harder and better (I am human), but we have a mechanism for redistributing money — taxes. They work! We should use them to achieve societal goals, instead of forcing financial balance by strictly regimenting job roles and pay grades. What I primarily want is to be effective at doing a high-skill job I enjoy and feel is valuable. That means taking on responsibilities outside my JD and fundamentally answering only to my employer, not to a committee coworkers, many of whom couldn't care less about actually getting work done.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

Careful not to strawman: you exaggerated the idea of having to join a union in order to work a particular job, into being coerced by your government, and now you're attacking the idea of being coerced by your government. You're no longer commenting on unions. Let's get back on track: Americans overwhelmingly clearly need unions because employment and contract laws do not protect individuals (including those self-employed) anywhere near to the degree that it protects groups covered by collective agreement contracts. When we drill down, what I suspect we'll find is that what you oppose is having to sacrifice part of your salary for something you won't reap the benefits of. And that'd be a fair concern: America has a huge wage problem that's only been getting worse over the last half-century, where some jobs are now decadently overpaid, while most jobs are criminally underpaid as to not even be a living wage despite full time employment. So here's the irony: the only two ways to solve that problem are to enact laws that force companies into paying true living wages, which we can comfortably say cannot happen given the farce that is US politics, or through collective agreements that force companies into paying fair wages because they won't have a workforce if they don't. Which requires unions. With the ultimate irony of course being that the only way to make sure those union don't forget about your needs (e.g. ensuring enough salary bands so you won't go down in pay, ensuring the due scheme is fair, ensuring there are clear restrictions on how the dues get spent so that being the head of the union isn't a retirement plan of its own) is to join one and help steer it through active participation.

bpodgursky 4y ago
> what I suspect we'll find is that what you oppose is having to sacrifice part of your salary for something you won't reap the benefits Exclusive representation IS government coercion! Unless you're in a right-to-work state, the government forbids an employee from working for an employer outside a union, if the workforce is unionized. And the only way the government enforces any rule is, when push comes to shove, the threat of violence if you break the rules. That's the point of government! re financials: I think you should "ask", rather than "suspect". And no, this is not primarily financial. Yes, I want to get more money for working harder and better (I am human), but we have a mechanism for redistributing money — taxes. They work! We should use them to achieve societal goals, instead of forcing financial balance by strictly regimenting job roles and pay grades. What I primarily want is to be effective at doing a high-skill job I enjoy and feel is valuable. That means taking on responsibilities outside my JD and fundamentally answering only to my employer, not to a committee coworkers, many of whom couldn't care less about actually getting work done.