4 ms·

"They will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods."

"They will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods." Does this scare anyone else? I can't articulate exactly why this scares me, but it seems rather... un-free. If workers are free to unionize, shouldn't employers be free to choose who they employ and when?

raheemm 18y ago
As long as they find a happy medium - it's not going to be "scary"
- unalone 18y ago
  Yeah. Either side taken to the extreme is slightly scary. Absolute freedom could easily lead to very evil corporations. No freedom leads to Atlas Shrugged. Some place in the middle, where we learn from things that go wrong and try to make a good equilibrium, is potentially the best for both sides.
  - drewcrawford 18y ago
    I disagree. It's true that "absolute freedom" and "no freedom" are polar opposites. It's a non-sequiter that their oppositeness prevents either of them from being true, somehow forcing us to find some utilitarian compromise. There are well-written defenses of both lasseiz-faire and marxist economics (although I think the former is vastly more defendable than the latter). I've yet to read a thorough, consistent defense of some "middle way".
palish 18y ago
Yes, that's a little nerve-wracking. We'll see what happens.
mynameishere 18y ago
Don't worry about that. Worry about the removal of secret votes following card check procedures at businesses. That will allow union organizers to "organize" unions by way of muscle. But don't worry about that either.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  I suspect it's less by muscle, and more by social pressure. Don't underestimate the desire to conform.
  - hugh 18y ago
    It also makes it easier to lie to the workers about exactly what the "card" is for. The UAW keeps trying to unionize postdocs at the University of California. They do this by coming around to their offices, one-on-one, pulling them out to the corridor, and pressuring them to sign a card which they say is "to get more information" or something. Many people (and remember, an awful lot of postdocs can barely speak English) just sign the card to get them to go away, without realizing that they've just officially voted for unionization.
anewaccountname 18y ago
>If workers are free to unionize, shouldn't employers be free to choose who they employ and when? If there were a one-sided restriction on employers like you sort of make it out to be, yes it would scare me. But it isn't. Unions are not allowed to conduct secondary-strikes for instance. This tremendously weakens their power, and to make up for it we wind up with a cycle of more unnecessary regulation for both sides. I agree we need less regulation of it overall--but it is crazy to pretend there isn't significant regulation stifling the union side of things.
- unalone 18y ago
  What is a secondary strike?
  - hugh 18y ago
    That's where there's a dispute between the union and company A, so the union not only pulls company A's workers out on strike, but also company B and C's. It's a tactic most often used just to be assholes.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Gotcha. Thanks!
      - anewaccountname 18y ago
        Note that traditionally company B and C aren't just arbitrary as the parent kinda makes it seem. It would usually be something like restaurant workers at A are on strike, and truck drivers working for B refuse to deliver to A in solidarity with them. It is totally illegal under Taft-Hartley, which certainly isn't only about constraining big business.
hugh 18y ago
Sweet! Does that mean that instead of quitting my job I can just go on permanent strike from it? That way, I know I can always get the job back if I decide to return. Kinda unfair to my boss, who won't ever be able to replace me, but hey! One of the small costs of creating a worker's paradise, right?
- unalone 18y ago
  I'd like to think that the system will be designed to prevent abuse like that. I mean, this site is based on a grand overview rather than getting into nitty-bitty details. I think it's possible to create a system that prevents stuff like this happening. And I'd like to think that Obama's committed to people not gaming the system.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]

raheemm 18y ago

As long as they find a happy medium - it's not going to be "scary"

unalone 18y ago
Yeah. Either side taken to the extreme is slightly scary. Absolute freedom could easily lead to very evil corporations. No freedom leads to Atlas Shrugged. Some place in the middle, where we learn from things that go wrong and try to make a good equilibrium, is potentially the best for both sides.
- drewcrawford 18y ago
  I disagree. It's true that "absolute freedom" and "no freedom" are polar opposites. It's a non-sequiter that their oppositeness prevents either of them from being true, somehow forcing us to find some utilitarian compromise. There are well-written defenses of both lasseiz-faire and marxist economics (although I think the former is vastly more defendable than the latter). I've yet to read a thorough, consistent defense of some "middle way".

palish 18y ago

Yes, that's a little nerve-wracking. We'll see what happens.

mynameishere 18y ago

Don't worry about that. Worry about the removal of secret votes following card check procedures at businesses. That will allow union organizers to "organize" unions by way of muscle. But don't worry about that either.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
I suspect it's less by muscle, and more by social pressure. Don't underestimate the desire to conform.
- hugh 18y ago
  It also makes it easier to lie to the workers about exactly what the "card" is for. The UAW keeps trying to unionize postdocs at the University of California. They do this by coming around to their offices, one-on-one, pulling them out to the corridor, and pressuring them to sign a card which they say is "to get more information" or something. Many people (and remember, an awful lot of postdocs can barely speak English) just sign the card to get them to go away, without realizing that they've just officially voted for unionization.

anewaccountname 18y ago

>If workers are free to unionize, shouldn't employers be free to choose who they employ and when? If there were a one-sided restriction on employers like you sort of make it out to be, yes it would scare me. But it isn't. Unions are not allowed to conduct secondary-strikes for instance. This tremendously weakens their power, and to make up for it we wind up with a cycle of more unnecessary regulation for both sides. I agree we need less regulation of it overall--but it is crazy to pretend there isn't significant regulation stifling the union side of things.

unalone 18y ago
What is a secondary strike?
- hugh 18y ago
  That's where there's a dispute between the union and company A, so the union not only pulls company A's workers out on strike, but also company B and C's. It's a tactic most often used just to be assholes.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Gotcha. Thanks!
    - anewaccountname 18y ago
      Note that traditionally company B and C aren't just arbitrary as the parent kinda makes it seem. It would usually be something like restaurant workers at A are on strike, and truck drivers working for B refuse to deliver to A in solidarity with them. It is totally illegal under Taft-Hartley, which certainly isn't only about constraining big business.

hugh 18y ago

Sweet! Does that mean that instead of quitting my job I can just go on permanent strike from it? That way, I know I can always get the job back if I decide to return. Kinda unfair to my boss, who won't ever be able to replace me, but hey! One of the small costs of creating a worker's paradise, right?

unalone 18y ago
I'd like to think that the system will be designed to prevent abuse like that. I mean, this site is based on a grand overview rather than getting into nitty-bitty details. I think it's possible to create a system that prevents stuff like this happening. And I'd like to think that Obama's committed to people not gaming the system.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]