4 ms·

OK I'll bite - why?

bombcar 4y ago
If I were to try to guess, it's that it forces political cooperation on people under threat of not having a job. Imagine the situation where every single company in your state is a union shop (you have to join the union and pay dues if you work) - and every single union is wildly pro-gun, supporting candidates who want everyone to carry two guns (but they'll compromise to only men and only one if pushed). So to live and work, your money has to go to support that. If you were anti-gun, you'd probably feel a bit annoyed.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  I live in a country (Romania) with almost no legal guns, so I am missing some context. I thought that with the USA constitution guns are a right that "shall not be infringed", so what exactly "anti-gun" means: changing the constitution or ignoring it? Most of the news I see, people are trying to ignore it, which is basically ignoring the laws. In this case, Amazon breaking some laws seems to fit well in the picture.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It's an attempt to pick an example that "works" - most people on HN will not be sad that the union supports a political party, because it's the party they also support.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    The Constitution is not “the law”, it only restricts what the government can do, not individuals. Guns are a right but only to a limited extent. No right is absolute. The debate right now is how far this right extends.
    - AdrianB1 4y ago
      Thank you for the explanation.
- JWlrCk9PkipFTDq 4y ago
  I get your point, but that's specifically compulsory union membership (which I agree is undesirable). It's a huge leap from that to "unions should be illegal". Side note - where I am (Australia) compulsory union membership is illegal. At its core a trade union is an organisation that represents workers interests, and that formally negotiates on behalf of its members. To say that unions should be illegal is to say that workers should be banned from collectively negotiating via formal organisations, which seems a tad extreme.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I believe in most cases in the US you have compulsory union membership (or as matters most, compulsory union dues).
    - JWlrCk9PkipFTDq 4y ago
      Definitely agree that compulsory union membership (or compulsory membership of any political organisation for that matter) is a terrible idea!
      - bombcar 4y ago
        The argument is understandable - if you're not forced to join the union and pay for it, then everyone will just not join and let the union still negotiate on their behalf; and it'll have no money to operate and fall apart. However, I'm sure there would be other ways (for example, if the union is negotiating with the company, the company can just pay for the union, it does indirectly through salary anyway).
        JWlrCk9PkipFTDq 4y ago
        Yeah for sure - I can see why compulsory unionism is a thing for historical reasons and understand the argument for maintaining it but fundamentally disagree on principle (freedom of political association etc.). Voluntary membership is a hard problem for unions, and in Australia declining union membership is a big thing outside of industries like construction that still have unionism as a core part of the working culture. I think it's hard for a lot of people to see the benefits they gain from union membership when most of the basic working rights that unions have won are taken for granted, and a lot of the bargaining and political lobbying work they do is somewhat abstract. It always seems strange to me how much anti-union sentiment there seems to be in the US though. Not to say that Australia is perfect by any means but labour conditions in the US seem pretty insane as an outsider.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  Imagine the situation where every single company in your state is underpaying its employees, exploiting workforce in third world countries, polluting the environment, externalizing costs, laying off exclusively to improve short term profits for shareholders, etc and they lobby governments to keep it that way. So to live and work, your labor has to go to support that. If you were anti-capitalist, you'd probably feel a bit annoyed.

OK I'll bite - why?

If I were to try to guess, it's that it forces political cooperation on people under threat of not having a job. Imagine the situation where every single company in your state is a union shop (you have to join the union and pay dues if you work) - and every single union is wildly pro-gun, supporting candidates who want everyone to carry two guns (but they'll compromise to only men and only one if pushed). So to live and work, your money has to go to support that. If you were anti-gun, you'd probably feel a bit annoyed.

AdrianB1 4y ago
I live in a country (Romania) with almost no legal guns, so I am missing some context. I thought that with the USA constitution guns are a right that "shall not be infringed", so what exactly "anti-gun" means: changing the constitution or ignoring it? Most of the news I see, people are trying to ignore it, which is basically ignoring the laws. In this case, Amazon breaking some laws seems to fit well in the picture.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's an attempt to pick an example that "works" - most people on HN will not be sad that the union supports a political party, because it's the party they also support.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  The Constitution is not “the law”, it only restricts what the government can do, not individuals. Guns are a right but only to a limited extent. No right is absolute. The debate right now is how far this right extends.
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    Thank you for the explanation.
JWlrCk9PkipFTDq 4y ago
I get your point, but that's specifically compulsory union membership (which I agree is undesirable). It's a huge leap from that to "unions should be illegal". Side note - where I am (Australia) compulsory union membership is illegal. At its core a trade union is an organisation that represents workers interests, and that formally negotiates on behalf of its members. To say that unions should be illegal is to say that workers should be banned from collectively negotiating via formal organisations, which seems a tad extreme.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I believe in most cases in the US you have compulsory union membership (or as matters most, compulsory union dues).
  - JWlrCk9PkipFTDq 4y ago
    Definitely agree that compulsory union membership (or compulsory membership of any political organisation for that matter) is a terrible idea!
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The argument is understandable - if you're not forced to join the union and pay for it, then everyone will just not join and let the union still negotiate on their behalf; and it'll have no money to operate and fall apart. However, I'm sure there would be other ways (for example, if the union is negotiating with the company, the company can just pay for the union, it does indirectly through salary anyway).
      - JWlrCk9PkipFTDq 4y ago
        Yeah for sure - I can see why compulsory unionism is a thing for historical reasons and understand the argument for maintaining it but fundamentally disagree on principle (freedom of political association etc.). Voluntary membership is a hard problem for unions, and in Australia declining union membership is a big thing outside of industries like construction that still have unionism as a core part of the working culture. I think it's hard for a lot of people to see the benefits they gain from union membership when most of the basic working rights that unions have won are taken for granted, and a lot of the bargaining and political lobbying work they do is somewhat abstract. It always seems strange to me how much anti-union sentiment there seems to be in the US though. Not to say that Australia is perfect by any means but labour conditions in the US seem pretty insane as an outsider.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
Imagine the situation where every single company in your state is underpaying its employees, exploiting workforce in third world countries, polluting the environment, externalizing costs, laying off exclusively to improve short term profits for shareholders, etc and they lobby governments to keep it that way. So to live and work, your labor has to go to support that. If you were anti-capitalist, you'd probably feel a bit annoyed.