5 ms·

What happened to respecting the will of the voters? Why do we take it for granted that we live in a democracy, but tolerate that businesses are directed like d

What happened to respecting the will of the voters? Why do we take it for granted that we live in a democracy, but tolerate that businesses are directed like dictatorships? That's insane.

WalterBright 4y ago
Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. Don't I, as a free man, have the right to negotiate as I see fit with my employer? Why should that right be taken away by a vote of others? Or let's put it another way. The Dems are for purple cars, the Reps are for yellow cars. We all get to vote on what we get! Is that freedom? What if I want a purple car, and the vote went yellow? What if I want a red car? That isn't freedom.
- lopis 4y ago
  Aren't unions opt-in?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    What's the point of the vote, then?
    - mdpye 4y ago
      Those who have opted in choose to be bound by the vote in exchange for the increased bargaining power that a consistent position affords, right? In the car analogy, you're missing the "free to not have any car at all even though you would like one" option.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Again, what's the point of a vote to form a union, if you can be in a union or not as you choose? The ones who want a union can just make one.
        Jensson 4y ago
        Yeah, that is how it works in Europe. In Europe we protected workers against unions, so workers don't have to be as afraid of unions. In USA they protected unions against workers, so that unions don't have to be afraid of workers, no wonder unions aren't popular then...
        mdpye 4y ago
        Right, I misunderstood which vote were were talking about, sorry. I thought we were talking about voting on union action (e.g. to strike, or to accept a specific deal in a negotiation)
  - Dma54rhs 4y ago
    Unions in America are way different compared to Europe. It's worth reading about it.
    - hughjd 4y ago
      Do you have a link or something to google at all? I tried variations of 'us vs europe union differences' but not getting anything relevant.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        EU has right to work, that is a major one. I think the reason you don't see people talk about that online is that the left don't want to admit that right to work is pro workers, and the right don't want to use EU as a positive example.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        There's a lot more to it than that. EU legislation establishes individual rights for all workers, with a maximum working week of 48 hours, paid annual leave of at least four weeks per year, rest periods and rules on night work, shift work and patterns of work. Who needs unions with great labor laws already in place? Of course the right in the US want none of that. A lot of EU law already in place is a wish list for US employees who join a union.
        Jensson 4y ago
        But that just makes right to work seem even better, EU where workers don't need to pay unions to get rights still pay their unions and are way more willing to join unions. So to me demonising right to work doesn't make sense, California could add those worker protections if they wanted, I see no reason at all why they need workers to give up their rights so that unions can take their money.
        tchaffee 4y ago
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    I'm not from US, but I would assume unions are only opt-in in right-to-work states. NYC is not one of them.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Common misconception, also seen among many of the replies. Unions are not opt-in, unless you consider "taking a union job" opt-in. If this vote goes through (and a contract agreed), and you take a unionized job in the unionized warehouse, you will be covered by the union contract. If management violates the contract in a way that harms you, the union will be filing a grievance on your behalf. If you ask for a union rep to be in the room when discipline is discussed, they must send a rep. You will vote on a proposed contract. In short, the union has the responsibility to represent you, based on your being in a union job. A "right to work" state is one where the union cannot sign a contract with the employer forcing you to pay union dues in order to get the representation you are entitled to. So, you have the right, in a "right to work" state, to avail yourself of the union representation without paying dues. That's exactly what "right to work" means, and no more.
- namdnay 4y ago
  So what’s your alternative? At the end of the day, certain things can only work if we align everyone. You can’t have half the electorate paying 10% tax but no police service and half the country paying 15% tax but getting police
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    That's under the government's purview. It has nothing to do with employees vs business. Unless you're arguing that businesses should be operated by the government.
    - namdnay 4y ago
      you just said > Or let's put it another way. The Dems are for purple cars, the Reps are for yellow cars. We all get to vote on what we get! Is that freedom? What if I want a purple car, and the vote went yellow? What if I want a red car? you weren't talking about government here?
    - CPLX 4y ago
      The reasons for people to band together in the form of government to collectively hire police and to band together as a union to collectively bargain with employers are the same, namely to protect members of society from those who would cause them harm. The idea of “freedom” from government as a frame of reference here is bullshit. The entire concept of a corporation is a government created legal fiction, and an arbitrary one. Corporations are required to do hundreds of thousands of things. Jeff Bezos can rent a warehouse and talk people into going there and do whatever the fuck he wants. But if he wants limited liability, access to the roads and waterways the society creates and manages, enforcement of property rights, and the permission to enter a joint stock partnership to fund it he needs government permission, also known as the permission of society. The fact of Amazon even existing at all is a privilege granted by the state that can be revoked at any time. I don’t have the freedom to negotiate as I see fit with my employer. I also don’t have the freedom to punch Jeff Bezos in the nuts for not paying fair wages and I am not allowed to be a hairdresser if I don’t pass an exam or sell securities without registering them or pork that I’ve been storing in my attic all week. We regulate every single aspect of commerce, it’s a choice we’ve made as a society.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jfengel 4y ago
Businesses have always been dictatorships. It's only governments that are democracies. The will of the voters that matters in this case is the voters who voted for labor laws. (Or rather, voters who voted for politicians, who voted for labor laws.) And, of course, the voters who voted for the Supreme Court, who gets to singlehandedly say what those laws actually mean. (Again, they don't vote directly; they vote for a President who nominates and a Senate who approves.) The vote of a union only matters in light of those labor laws. And the company has the right to appeal those, under those same laws. It would be nice for the company to also take the responsibility to respect the intention of the law, rather than hoping they'll get some body (elected or otherwise) to give them the answer they wanted. But our whole system is deliberately adversarial: everybody fights as hard as they can for what they want, regardless of what would actually be right. That's a big chunk of the reason we have unions in the first place. It's a terrible system, the worst one, except for all of the others. Me, I'm voting with my feet: I'm using Amazon as little as I can get away with, even when it costs more to use an alternative. They can fix that by ceasing to be douchebags... but that seems pretty unlikely.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I'm not buying it. Monarchy was the best system ever tried until democracy gained prominence. Voting with feet and voting with dollars has always been a way to make workers and consumers(often the same) feel like they've got a say without actually giving them one. The problem is that the territory of the conflict is attempting to be constrained ie: within the current legal structure. What isn't allowed here is the conflict to spill into the province of arguing about the rules of the game itself. We've never had a static legal landscape and never will, and yet arguments like these assume it. Workers should have a shot at workplace democracy because it's a fundamental right of self-determination. Carve-outs of that right like in workplaces are only as natural as we make them.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Hey, I don't disagree. I'm just explaining how it works: just because a bunch of people get together to vote on something doesn't make it binding. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. There's a million things I'd do differently if I were in charge. But not only am I not in charge, what little power I do possess has been systematically diluted to the point of effective nonexistence.

What happened to respecting the will of the voters? Why do we take it for granted that we live in a democracy, but tolerate that businesses are directed like dictatorships? That's insane.

WalterBright 4y ago

Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. Don't I, as a free man, have the right to negotiate as I see fit with my employer? Why should that right be taken away by a vote of others? Or let's put it another way. The Dems are for purple cars, the Reps are for yellow cars. We all get to vote on what we get! Is that freedom? What if I want a purple car, and the vote went yellow? What if I want a red car? That isn't freedom.

lopis 4y ago
Aren't unions opt-in?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  What's the point of the vote, then?
  - mdpye 4y ago
    Those who have opted in choose to be bound by the vote in exchange for the increased bargaining power that a consistent position affords, right? In the car analogy, you're missing the "free to not have any car at all even though you would like one" option.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Again, what's the point of a vote to form a union, if you can be in a union or not as you choose? The ones who want a union can just make one.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        Yeah, that is how it works in Europe. In Europe we protected workers against unions, so workers don't have to be as afraid of unions. In USA they protected unions against workers, so that unions don't have to be afraid of workers, no wonder unions aren't popular then...
      - mdpye 4y ago
        Right, I misunderstood which vote were were talking about, sorry. I thought we were talking about voting on union action (e.g. to strike, or to accept a specific deal in a negotiation)
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  Unions in America are way different compared to Europe. It's worth reading about it.
  - hughjd 4y ago
    Do you have a link or something to google at all? I tried variations of 'us vs europe union differences' but not getting anything relevant.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      EU has right to work, that is a major one. I think the reason you don't see people talk about that online is that the left don't want to admit that right to work is pro workers, and the right don't want to use EU as a positive example.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        There's a lot more to it than that. EU legislation establishes individual rights for all workers, with a maximum working week of 48 hours, paid annual leave of at least four weeks per year, rest periods and rules on night work, shift work and patterns of work. Who needs unions with great labor laws already in place? Of course the right in the US want none of that. A lot of EU law already in place is a wish list for US employees who join a union.
        Jensson 4y ago
        But that just makes right to work seem even better, EU where workers don't need to pay unions to get rights still pay their unions and are way more willing to join unions. So to me demonising right to work doesn't make sense, California could add those worker protections if they wanted, I see no reason at all why they need workers to give up their rights so that unions can take their money.
        tchaffee 4y ago
- caskstrength 4y ago
  I'm not from US, but I would assume unions are only opt-in in right-to-work states. NYC is not one of them.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  Common misconception, also seen among many of the replies. Unions are not opt-in, unless you consider "taking a union job" opt-in. If this vote goes through (and a contract agreed), and you take a unionized job in the unionized warehouse, you will be covered by the union contract. If management violates the contract in a way that harms you, the union will be filing a grievance on your behalf. If you ask for a union rep to be in the room when discipline is discussed, they must send a rep. You will vote on a proposed contract. In short, the union has the responsibility to represent you, based on your being in a union job. A "right to work" state is one where the union cannot sign a contract with the employer forcing you to pay union dues in order to get the representation you are entitled to. So, you have the right, in a "right to work" state, to avail yourself of the union representation without paying dues. That's exactly what "right to work" means, and no more.
namdnay 4y ago
So what’s your alternative? At the end of the day, certain things can only work if we align everyone. You can’t have half the electorate paying 10% tax but no police service and half the country paying 15% tax but getting police
- WalterBright 4y ago
  That's under the government's purview. It has nothing to do with employees vs business. Unless you're arguing that businesses should be operated by the government.
  - namdnay 4y ago
    you just said > Or let's put it another way. The Dems are for purple cars, the Reps are for yellow cars. We all get to vote on what we get! Is that freedom? What if I want a purple car, and the vote went yellow? What if I want a red car? you weren't talking about government here?
  - CPLX 4y ago
    The reasons for people to band together in the form of government to collectively hire police and to band together as a union to collectively bargain with employers are the same, namely to protect members of society from those who would cause them harm. The idea of “freedom” from government as a frame of reference here is bullshit. The entire concept of a corporation is a government created legal fiction, and an arbitrary one. Corporations are required to do hundreds of thousands of things. Jeff Bezos can rent a warehouse and talk people into going there and do whatever the fuck he wants. But if he wants limited liability, access to the roads and waterways the society creates and manages, enforcement of property rights, and the permission to enter a joint stock partnership to fund it he needs government permission, also known as the permission of society. The fact of Amazon even existing at all is a privilege granted by the state that can be revoked at any time. I don’t have the freedom to negotiate as I see fit with my employer. I also don’t have the freedom to punch Jeff Bezos in the nuts for not paying fair wages and I am not allowed to be a hairdresser if I don’t pass an exam or sell securities without registering them or pork that I’ve been storing in my attic all week. We regulate every single aspect of commerce, it’s a choice we’ve made as a society.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jfengel 4y ago

Businesses have always been dictatorships. It's only governments that are democracies. The will of the voters that matters in this case is the voters who voted for labor laws. (Or rather, voters who voted for politicians, who voted for labor laws.) And, of course, the voters who voted for the Supreme Court, who gets to singlehandedly say what those laws actually mean. (Again, they don't vote directly; they vote for a President who nominates and a Senate who approves.) The vote of a union only matters in light of those labor laws. And the company has the right to appeal those, under those same laws. It would be nice for the company to also take the responsibility to respect the intention of the law, rather than hoping they'll get some body (elected or otherwise) to give them the answer they wanted. But our whole system is deliberately adversarial: everybody fights as hard as they can for what they want, regardless of what would actually be right. That's a big chunk of the reason we have unions in the first place. It's a terrible system, the worst one, except for all of the others. Me, I'm voting with my feet: I'm using Amazon as little as I can get away with, even when it costs more to use an alternative. They can fix that by ceasing to be douchebags... but that seems pretty unlikely.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
I'm not buying it. Monarchy was the best system ever tried until democracy gained prominence. Voting with feet and voting with dollars has always been a way to make workers and consumers(often the same) feel like they've got a say without actually giving them one. The problem is that the territory of the conflict is attempting to be constrained ie: within the current legal structure. What isn't allowed here is the conflict to spill into the province of arguing about the rules of the game itself. We've never had a static legal landscape and never will, and yet arguments like these assume it. Workers should have a shot at workplace democracy because it's a fundamental right of self-determination. Carve-outs of that right like in workplaces are only as natural as we make them.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Hey, I don't disagree. I'm just explaining how it works: just because a bunch of people get together to vote on something doesn't make it binding. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. There's a million things I'd do differently if I were in charge. But not only am I not in charge, what little power I do possess has been systematically diluted to the point of effective nonexistence.