4 ms·
>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 s
by 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 agoWhat is a secondary strike?
- hugh 18y agoThat'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 agoGotcha. Thanks!
- anewaccountname 18y agoNote 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.