3 ms·

I view unions like i view government. It's possible, sometimes likely, that a government becomes a horrid entity for control over people. However. Governments,

I view unions like i view government. It's possible, sometimes likely, that a government becomes a horrid entity for control over people. However. Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people. Some for-profit company or individual has no ethical obligation to treat workers correctly, fairly, etc. So if we remove unions and government, what power do individual people have? To that idea then, people need a gov/union to have a voice - but govs and unions also need to be built with an extreme attention to oversight. Which we usually fail to implement correctly. Nevertheless it's the only tool we have - to give individuals power by distributing agreement. So to me the question isn't for or against gov/union, but rather how we can build them to scale and last. Especially in the face of pressure to corrupt. Happy to hear opinions on where this is wrong, though.

nvm0n2 3y ago
> Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people I never heard of this definition for unions! Unions definitely aren't for or by "the people", that would mean everyone. Unions are - by definition - a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. Unless you're a communist, in which case you think managers, company founders, shopkeepers, farmers etc aren't really people.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Not sure i follow. > a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. So is _any_ group but "all". "For the people" doesn't literally mean "all people". Government would also not be "for the people" by your definition, given that we have no (real) global government. If we get together and form a union, ie our joint effort towards a common goal, have we not formed an entity for the people (us), by the people (us)? Your argument seems odd. "But it's not for everyone" is.. well, yea - nothing is. Literally. What can you say that is "everyone"?

nvm0n2 3y ago

> Governments, and perhaps Unions, are by definition (correct me if i'm wrong?) an entity that is by the people and for the people I never heard of this definition for unions! Unions definitely aren't for or by "the people", that would mean everyone. Unions are - by definition - a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. Unless you're a communist, in which case you think managers, company founders, shopkeepers, farmers etc aren't really people.

unshavedyak 3y ago
Not sure i follow. > a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive. So is _any_ group but "all". "For the people" doesn't literally mean "all people". Government would also not be "for the people" by your definition, given that we have no (real) global government. If we get together and form a union, ie our joint effort towards a common goal, have we not formed an entity for the people (us), by the people (us)? Your argument seems odd. "But it's not for everyone" is.. well, yea - nothing is. Literally. What can you say that is "everyone"?