8 ms·

There is nothing wrong with collusion, whether its from employees, or employers. The state should stay out of it, and the laws forcing negotiations, or giving

by djbebs 4y ago

There is nothing wrong with collusion, whether its from employees, or employers. The state should stay out of it, and the laws forcing negotiations, or giving either the company or the employees protections should not exist. If employees want to get together in a union and negotiate collectively, that's their right and they should not be legally barred from doing so. If companies want to fire the employees who do so, and not deal with a union in any way, that too is their right and they should not be legally barred from doing so. The primary purpose of labor laws should be to establish the expectations in the absence of an article in the contract establishing those expectations (ie: if the contract doesn't mention which safety procedures are to be followed in the steel foundry, the thing that's in the law prevails. If the contract outlines other procedures, then the contract prevails). A secondary purpose of the labor law is to enforce the contract. (Ie: if an employee doesn't get paid for hours worked, the courts should be therefore to enforce the payment) Anything else the state should stay out of.

lovich 4y ago
That sounds like a quick path to having people sell them into slavery the first time the economy goes south and people get desperate
- redeeman 4y ago
  why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot?
  - lovich 4y ago
    > why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees > if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? Observed behavior? Are you unfamiliar with the small businesses complaining about how “nobody wants to work” while offering minimum wage? Or in the tech industry how the majority of firms have settled on providing below market yearly salary increases and eating the replacement cost for employees rather than pay a few percent more to keep people from looking for new jobs. To the point that it’s commonly accepted for jobs to be 2-3 year stints instead of the lifelong careers of the past? > this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? You’re reading into it if you think I’m referring to just “working joes”. It’s what desperate people do in the rule set you propose. It’s how we had indentured servants in the American colonies. It’s how there were literally people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets in the Roman Empire. > is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot? If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they save up a decent enough buffer?
    - redeeman 4y ago
      > Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees I legitimately do not understand what you are saying. I am a business owner, are you seriously saying I would rather dissolve my business than pay what it costs for labour (assuming i could still make money after paying that much for labour) ? Are you saying that if all software engineers tomorrow simply had an epiphany, and demanded 50% more money, google would say "we had a good run, time to simply END google" ? > Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees And clearly those companies still do reasonably fine, and isnt THAT much in lack of employees, or they are in a low margin market where paying more would not really result in sufficient profit to incur the risk? > You’re reading into it if you think I’m referring to just “working joes”. It’s what desperate people do in the rule set you propose. It’s how we had indentured servants in the American colonies. It’s how there were literally people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets in the Roman Empire. I am not saying any one solution fits ALL scenarios, but WHY are they desperate? if they have skills that are useful enough to a company that it could ever sustain hiring them for a pay we would both agree is decent, then what is the reason? > If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they save up a decent enough buffer? by saving up before they become that desperate. I am not saying this covers for absolutely everyone, but I will dare say the vast majority, and I would double down and say that a large part of those where it doesnt, its because they have been held back by these authoritarian nanny-state laws and customs. A very large amount of people who are living paycheck to paycheck very regularly does very stupid shit, like buy fancy clothes, go to restaurants instead of cooking themselves, prioritize a fairly new iphone, have a few streaming subscriptions etc. They would consider it 100% impossible to live without that, and would rather go into extreme debt and be "desperate" when the bill comes due. Again, not everyone, some people legitimately have all odds against them from the beginning. Some have emergencies happen that they realistically couldnt have prepared for even if they did everything. This is the edge cases, the outliers. NOT the bulk of people. The bulk of people who subscribe to nanny state things considers it more apropriate to have a netflix subscription than set that money aside in an emergency fund, assuming they are paycheck-to-paycheck
cma 4y ago
The owners voting results are legally enforced amongst each other. In right-to-organize states employee voting results are likewise enforced amongst employees. In right-to-work it is a state protected dollar-weighted democracy with all kinds of liability limit gifts and intricate rules for protecting minority shareholds for the owners, and nothing similar for the employees. Democracy of dollars over democarcy of people is the main concern in right to work states, except for Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, etc. all get union like protections backed by the state and enforced results of voting within their associations, they are the "right" people with enough dollars to have a level of democracy in the workforce.
- djbebs 4y ago
  Rest assured, I believe agreements between employees should be just as enforceable as agreements between shareholders. Indeed that fits perfectly well in that second point I mentioned.
  - cma 4y ago
    In many right to work states the union's contract with the firm can't legally say newly hired workers are to be part of the union's democratic process, paying agreed on dues, etc., so it is an immediate coordination problem that the owner side doesn't have to suffer.
    - djbebs 4y ago
      You're confused. The only thing that right to way means is that employees cannot be forced to contract with the union if they do not want to. It does not prevent them from doing so.
      - cma 4y ago
        Most (all?) right to work states have a law saying the union can't voluntarily contract with the firm to put in terms say new hires would be part of the union and have to pay dues. Alabama for instance blocks such agreements: > Any agreement/combination between employer and labor union or organization denying nonmembers right to work is prohibited; labor organizations cannot require membership, abstention, or payment of union dues. https://www.findlaw.com/state/alabama-law/alabama-right-to-work-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/alabama-law/alabama-right-to-w... Even if the union is unanimous in agreement to require dues and make things a union shop with an agreement that new employees will be in it too (through their employment agreement), that free agreement between union and firm is outlawed, even if it is unanimous. It is a masterstroke of "right-to-work" propaganda that even "I support all free contracts" Ayn Rand people don't know this. Missippi: > State "right-to-work" statutes generally prohibit employers and unions from requiring employees to be union members or pay membership dues membership in order for to get and keep a job. In addition to statutory provisions dating back to 1954, Mississippi had right-to-work guarantees added to the state constitution in 1960. From what I can see such a free agreement between union and business is prohibited in every right-to-work state: https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/right-to-work-laws-by-state.html https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/right-...

by djbebs 4y ago

lovich 4y ago

That sounds like a quick path to having people sell them into slavery the first time the economy goes south and people get desperate

redeeman 4y ago
why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot?
- lovich 4y ago
  > why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees > if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? Observed behavior? Are you unfamiliar with the small businesses complaining about how “nobody wants to work” while offering minimum wage? Or in the tech industry how the majority of firms have settled on providing below market yearly salary increases and eating the replacement cost for employees rather than pay a few percent more to keep people from looking for new jobs. To the point that it’s commonly accepted for jobs to be 2-3 year stints instead of the lifelong careers of the past? > this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? You’re reading into it if you think I’m referring to just “working joes”. It’s what desperate people do in the rule set you propose. It’s how we had indentured servants in the American colonies. It’s how there were literally people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets in the Roman Empire. > is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot? If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they save up a decent enough buffer?
  - redeeman 4y ago
    > Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees I legitimately do not understand what you are saying. I am a business owner, are you seriously saying I would rather dissolve my business than pay what it costs for labour (assuming i could still make money after paying that much for labour) ? Are you saying that if all software engineers tomorrow simply had an epiphany, and demanded 50% more money, google would say "we had a good run, time to simply END google" ? > Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees And clearly those companies still do reasonably fine, and isnt THAT much in lack of employees, or they are in a low margin market where paying more would not really result in sufficient profit to incur the risk? > You’re reading into it if you think I’m referring to just “working joes”. It’s what desperate people do in the rule set you propose. It’s how we had indentured servants in the American colonies. It’s how there were literally people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets in the Roman Empire. I am not saying any one solution fits ALL scenarios, but WHY are they desperate? if they have skills that are useful enough to a company that it could ever sustain hiring them for a pay we would both agree is decent, then what is the reason? > If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they save up a decent enough buffer? by saving up before they become that desperate. I am not saying this covers for absolutely everyone, but I will dare say the vast majority, and I would double down and say that a large part of those where it doesnt, its because they have been held back by these authoritarian nanny-state laws and customs. A very large amount of people who are living paycheck to paycheck very regularly does very stupid shit, like buy fancy clothes, go to restaurants instead of cooking themselves, prioritize a fairly new iphone, have a few streaming subscriptions etc. They would consider it 100% impossible to live without that, and would rather go into extreme debt and be "desperate" when the bill comes due. Again, not everyone, some people legitimately have all odds against them from the beginning. Some have emergencies happen that they realistically couldnt have prepared for even if they did everything. This is the edge cases, the outliers. NOT the bulk of people. The bulk of people who subscribe to nanny state things considers it more apropriate to have a netflix subscription than set that money aside in an emergency fund, assuming they are paycheck-to-paycheck

cma 4y ago

The owners voting results are legally enforced amongst each other. In right-to-organize states employee voting results are likewise enforced amongst employees. In right-to-work it is a state protected dollar-weighted democracy with all kinds of liability limit gifts and intricate rules for protecting minority shareholds for the owners, and nothing similar for the employees. Democracy of dollars over democarcy of people is the main concern in right to work states, except for Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, etc. all get union like protections backed by the state and enforced results of voting within their associations, they are the "right" people with enough dollars to have a level of democracy in the workforce.

djbebs 4y ago
Rest assured, I believe agreements between employees should be just as enforceable as agreements between shareholders. Indeed that fits perfectly well in that second point I mentioned.
- cma 4y ago
  In many right to work states the union's contract with the firm can't legally say newly hired workers are to be part of the union's democratic process, paying agreed on dues, etc., so it is an immediate coordination problem that the owner side doesn't have to suffer.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    You're confused. The only thing that right to way means is that employees cannot be forced to contract with the union if they do not want to. It does not prevent them from doing so.
    - cma 4y ago
      Most (all?) right to work states have a law saying the union can't voluntarily contract with the firm to put in terms say new hires would be part of the union and have to pay dues. Alabama for instance blocks such agreements: > Any agreement/combination between employer and labor union or organization denying nonmembers right to work is prohibited; labor organizations cannot require membership, abstention, or payment of union dues. https://www.findlaw.com/state/alabama-law/alabama-right-to-work-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/alabama-law/alabama-right-to-w... Even if the union is unanimous in agreement to require dues and make things a union shop with an agreement that new employees will be in it too (through their employment agreement), that free agreement between union and firm is outlawed, even if it is unanimous. It is a masterstroke of "right-to-work" propaganda that even "I support all free contracts" Ayn Rand people don't know this. Missippi: > State "right-to-work" statutes generally prohibit employers and unions from requiring employees to be union members or pay membership dues membership in order for to get and keep a job. In addition to statutory provisions dating back to 1954, Mississippi had right-to-work guarantees added to the state constitution in 1960. From what I can see such a free agreement between union and business is prohibited in every right-to-work state: https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/right-to-work-laws-by-state.html https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/right-...