5 ms·
Why would you abridge my freedom of association by forcing me to be part of a group I have no desire to join?
by throwawa14223 3y ago
Why would you abridge my freedom of association by forcing me to be part of a group I have no desire to join?
- wharvle 3y agoYou’re exactly as forced as people are forced to have a job.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwawa14223 3y agoI believe you are arguing I could always choose not to work. I wish to work for an employer and the employer wishes to work with me. In this hypothetical there is required membership with an unrelated party I do not wish to associate with. If I wanted to go to a coffee shop and that shop wanted to serve me coffee but the mafia is standing outside saying I have to pay them before I can go in, they are in fact forcing me to pay or turn away.
- wharvle 3y agoThe party’s not unrelated.
- throwawa14223 3y agoYes, in both cases.
- wharvle 3y agoAre boards of directors unrelated parties you’re forced to associate with if you don’t want to severely limit your employment options?
- throwawa14223 3y agoThe people the owners of the company have selected to run the company on their behalf are directly related to a company. I fail to see the similarity.
- wharvle 3y agoIt’s a legally required body for many companies. It’s being imposed by law. Same as required unions would be.
- throwawa14223 3y agoI've never been forced to become a member of a corporate board. This proposal however is that I be required to join a union. That is the material difference.
- wharvle 3y agoTrue. You’re merely forced to be subject to their decisions, made on behalf of and in the interest of people who aren’t you. [edit] I’m getting the sense that if we just restructure this so the union exists and does normal union stuff but you don’t have to “be a member” (but do have to abide by its decisions or else leave, as with a board) you’d be ok with it? Like it’s mainly a semantic problem?
- throwawa14223 3y agoI see it as more than a semantic problem, but the problem does boil down to the membership. If they are the lawful structure I'll abide by their decisions, I just don't want to be forced to join.
- Apocryphon 3y agoSo it’s exactly the same as a union, in a situation where the union is the lawful structure of worker bodies in the country you’re working in.
- 6565657 3y ago[dead]
- BobaFloutist 3y agoBecause it benefits the public good, the same way you're forced to be part of any country, state, city you reside in. Also freedom of association is very clearly intended as freedom to associate, not freedom not to associate, so it's a little confusing for you to refer to it.
- ajkjk 3y agoThe way I would do it is simply: no matter what, the employees get to vote down things their managers do. They can vote to do nothing, have no organizing body, and pay no dues, but they still get to vote, so if they want to prevent their bosses from doing something exploitative to them, they get to. This model does not put you in a group anymore than being an American citizen puts you in a group by giving you the right to vote on things. In my version it is like how you get to be in a political party if you want to and not be in one if you don't, but you get to vote either way. The right to have some say against your manager's power in your life (short of quitting, that is) should be unassailable. The fact that quitting is "all or nothing", and often not an option to people because the cost of finding a new job is high and often prohibitive to specifically the people who are most disenfranchised, makes it a poor and almost useless way to exercise power. Unions allow, in principal, for there to be intermediate pressures between "quitting" and "asking nicely".