4 ms·

Yes, if we had a powerful union that exerted power in the specific ways that you agreed with, I’m sure you’d be happy with it. In fact, why stop there, we could

Yes, if we had a powerful union that exerted power in the specific ways that you agreed with, I’m sure you’d be happy with it. In fact, why stop there, we could just make you dictator! Or at least someone who exclusively did things you agreed with, if you didn’t want the extra work. Failing that, we have a bit of a fork. Either we have a union that acts in the interests of its members (which the AMA has done!) or we have a union with some serious principal/agent issues that follows some other agenda, and the odds aren’t very good that you or I would always agree with that agenda.

Apocryphon 4y ago
All beings act in the interests of its members, and can still do so while in compliance to some greater system. That is why perhaps a union, like any other association of sentients that have ever existed, may be governed by a greater set of rules, such as laws, designed to preclude abuses such as in the AMA case. Which is why it is possible to support a ruler- even me- while simultaneously be at ease that they are not a dictator, because we live in a society of the rule of law.
- philwelch 4y ago
  Sure. Which laws stopped the AMA’s abuses? Conversely, which laws made those abuses possible? How are laws made, and how has the AMA, or unions in general, influenced that process? How often is the answer, “the union is a de facto segment of a specific political party, always contributes to that party’s campaign funds, and due to closed-shop employment arrangements, those funds are collected from workers’ paychecks regardless of their personal opinions”?
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Certainly, if both parties worked with unions, labor would not be seen as a partisan topic. And perhaps the continued rise of inequality might have been stymied. https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-rises/ https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-ri... And again, the AMA is not a union, but a professional association.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      > And again, the AMA is not a union, but a professional association. Yes, one of the “professional organizations that effectively function as unions” that you mentioned earlier as a positive example.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Yep, so we agree.

Apocryphon 4y ago

All beings act in the interests of its members, and can still do so while in compliance to some greater system. That is why perhaps a union, like any other association of sentients that have ever existed, may be governed by a greater set of rules, such as laws, designed to preclude abuses such as in the AMA case. Which is why it is possible to support a ruler- even me- while simultaneously be at ease that they are not a dictator, because we live in a society of the rule of law.

philwelch 4y ago
Sure. Which laws stopped the AMA’s abuses? Conversely, which laws made those abuses possible? How are laws made, and how has the AMA, or unions in general, influenced that process? How often is the answer, “the union is a de facto segment of a specific political party, always contributes to that party’s campaign funds, and due to closed-shop employment arrangements, those funds are collected from workers’ paychecks regardless of their personal opinions”?
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Certainly, if both parties worked with unions, labor would not be seen as a partisan topic. And perhaps the continued rise of inequality might have been stymied. https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-rises/ https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-ri... And again, the AMA is not a union, but a professional association.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    > And again, the AMA is not a union, but a professional association. Yes, one of the “professional organizations that effectively function as unions” that you mentioned earlier as a positive example.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Yep, so we agree.