5 ms·

Unionization is the 2nd amendment of labor law. The 2nd amendment exists because every human has a right to sacrifice themselves meaningfully to fight tyranny.

Unionization is the 2nd amendment of labor law. The 2nd amendment exists because every human has a right to sacrifice themselves meaningfully to fight tyranny. Guns are a proxy for power, and the 2nd amendment says that citizens have a right to some power. Since citizens have a right to some power, our government cannot get too tyrannical because there would be consequences. The right to unionize is the right to use the threat of force (collective bargaining) against tyrants (CEOs), exactly like the 2nd amendment is the right to use threat of force (use of guns) against tyrants (people who rule as kings). Unions are the representation of the idea that employees should be able to exercise meaningful power over their CEOs, in particular to demand better wages and conditions. Without collective bargaining, why would a CEO ever have to compromise or negotiate except with other CEOs? If multiple companies acted like a cartel, how would employees be able to fight that without collective bargaining? Why are wages generally proportional to the job, and not proportional to a companies profits? Just like in software, the structure can be sound, while the implementation is poor. I think a lot of the problems people have with unions are implementation detail problems rather than structural flaws.

throwaway742 4y ago
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary"
dudus 4y ago
Not sure why you are doing mental gymnastics to justify unionizing is a constitution right by conflating it with the 2nd amendment when the 1st amendment already guarantees the freedom of assembly which is widely understood to support unions.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  I interpreted it more as them explaining the societal value of unions via equating it with the 2nd amendment, i.e. 'they do these valuable things for us'. Not 'this is why we have that right'
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    It was more of an, if you support one, one which many people hold as part of their political identity, you should support the other.
chmod600 4y ago
An interesting analogy. It's hard to follow though, because the Second Amendment has been held as an individual right (with some dissenting perspectives, of course), while unionization is inherently collective.
- karpierz 4y ago
  I think the analogy is: - you can have a gun, such that you'd be able to form a militia and fight government tyranny. - you can advocate for collective bargaining, such that you'd be able to form a union and fight corporate tyranny.
VancouverMan 4y ago
What do you propose should be done when unions themselves acquire enough power and influence to begin to act in a tyrannical manner? We've seen this happen with public sector unions in various places, for example. Despite the employees having quite safe and comfortable working conditions, despite them being quite well compensated, and despite them even being able to have some input (via voting) over who their bosses are, it's not uncommon for these sorts of unions to impose varying degrees of disruption just to try to get even more money or benefits out of already over-taxed societies. These sorts of unions and their members never seem to care much about the negative effects that public transit, public education, and other artificial work disruptions/shutdowns may have on society at large.
- tryptophan 4y ago
  Anti monopoly laws apply to corporations, why not apply them to unions as well? Why does 1 union represent port workers on the entire eastern seaboard? Its a little absurd(USA has some of the least efficient ports in the world too...coincidence?).
bdowling 4y ago
The CEO isn't the one who is ultimately in charge, because the CEO is appointed by the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. Ultimately it is the shareholders who decide whether they want to stay invested in a business with a unionized labor force.
krainboltgreene 4y ago
> Since citizens have a right to some power, our government cannot get too tyrannical because there would be consequences. This is such a hilarious idea. Any amount of citizens that unite together armed to inhibit the government's "tyrannical behavior" (read: against white people, the government has already been tyrannical for many decades to an absurd degree without retribution) will find out three facts: 1. We spend almost $2T a year on defense so much so that a small fraction of that defense given to a minor nation was able to completely and totally repel a world power. 2. We spend almost $220B a year on police, a portion of which is spent on cheap outdated parts manufactured with the above money. 3. Every adult american buying an AR-15 comes out to $400B. Each of these forces is designed with the sole goal of protecting capital and private property.

throwaway742 4y ago

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary"

dudus 4y ago

Not sure why you are doing mental gymnastics to justify unionizing is a constitution right by conflating it with the 2nd amendment when the 1st amendment already guarantees the freedom of assembly which is widely understood to support unions.

kevingadd 4y ago
I interpreted it more as them explaining the societal value of unions via equating it with the 2nd amendment, i.e. 'they do these valuable things for us'. Not 'this is why we have that right'
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  It was more of an, if you support one, one which many people hold as part of their political identity, you should support the other.

chmod600 4y ago

An interesting analogy. It's hard to follow though, because the Second Amendment has been held as an individual right (with some dissenting perspectives, of course), while unionization is inherently collective.

karpierz 4y ago
I think the analogy is: - you can have a gun, such that you'd be able to form a militia and fight government tyranny. - you can advocate for collective bargaining, such that you'd be able to form a union and fight corporate tyranny.

VancouverMan 4y ago

What do you propose should be done when unions themselves acquire enough power and influence to begin to act in a tyrannical manner? We've seen this happen with public sector unions in various places, for example. Despite the employees having quite safe and comfortable working conditions, despite them being quite well compensated, and despite them even being able to have some input (via voting) over who their bosses are, it's not uncommon for these sorts of unions to impose varying degrees of disruption just to try to get even more money or benefits out of already over-taxed societies. These sorts of unions and their members never seem to care much about the negative effects that public transit, public education, and other artificial work disruptions/shutdowns may have on society at large.

tryptophan 4y ago
Anti monopoly laws apply to corporations, why not apply them to unions as well? Why does 1 union represent port workers on the entire eastern seaboard? Its a little absurd(USA has some of the least efficient ports in the world too...coincidence?).

bdowling 4y ago

The CEO isn't the one who is ultimately in charge, because the CEO is appointed by the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. Ultimately it is the shareholders who decide whether they want to stay invested in a business with a unionized labor force.

krainboltgreene 4y ago

> Since citizens have a right to some power, our government cannot get too tyrannical because there would be consequences. This is such a hilarious idea. Any amount of citizens that unite together armed to inhibit the government's "tyrannical behavior" (read: against white people, the government has already been tyrannical for many decades to an absurd degree without retribution) will find out three facts: 1. We spend almost $2T a year on defense so much so that a small fraction of that defense given to a minor nation was able to completely and totally repel a world power. 2. We spend almost $220B a year on police, a portion of which is spent on cheap outdated parts manufactured with the above money. 3. Every adult american buying an AR-15 comes out to $400B. Each of these forces is designed with the sole goal of protecting capital and private property.