4 ms·

Opt-in by default. Not all unions are great, but the median unionized worker earns more than a non-unionized worker in the same field. So the main reason peopl

Opt-in by default. Not all unions are great, but the median unionized worker earns more than a non-unionized worker in the same field. So the main reason people wouldn't want to join a union is because they've been conditioned to think they're bad, against their own economic interests.

throwawa14223 3y ago
I feel like you're reducing everything to material conditions. Joining a union would (statistically) help me economically but my objections to being in a union again are all moral convictions. Perhaps workers are optimizing for concerns you do not share?
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Is your moral objection that you're opposed to improved material conditions?
  - throwawa14223 3y ago
    I believe I should follow my word. Striking violates my principles.
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      Would it be ok if you were upfront about the possibility of striking? That seems like a very achievable adaptation.
      - throwawa14223 3y ago
        I think that would be acceptable to me assuming I had assurances I wouldn't be asked to participate or be represented by union actions that would be violent. No threats, no breaking things, no vandalism, etc.
        slantedview 3y ago
        Strikes are generally non violent, and the majority of times that they become violent, it's instigated by strike breakers hired by the company (including police). There is over a hundred years of history of this - plenty for you to read if you want to learn more.
- slantedview 3y ago
  Yes, I am reducing unions to economic concerns, but I should mention that most people's "moral" objection to unions is conditioned by parties whose interest is solely economic. When the Koch foundation buys airtime on news programs (effectively) to spread the idea that unions are evil and striking is immoral, it's not because they actually care about morals, it's because unions shift the economic playing field in a way that they don't like.

throwawa14223 3y ago

I feel like you're reducing everything to material conditions. Joining a union would (statistically) help me economically but my objections to being in a union again are all moral convictions. Perhaps workers are optimizing for concerns you do not share?

BobaFloutist 3y ago
Is your moral objection that you're opposed to improved material conditions?
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  I believe I should follow my word. Striking violates my principles.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Would it be ok if you were upfront about the possibility of striking? That seems like a very achievable adaptation.
    - throwawa14223 3y ago
      I think that would be acceptable to me assuming I had assurances I wouldn't be asked to participate or be represented by union actions that would be violent. No threats, no breaking things, no vandalism, etc.
      - slantedview 3y ago
        Strikes are generally non violent, and the majority of times that they become violent, it's instigated by strike breakers hired by the company (including police). There is over a hundred years of history of this - plenty for you to read if you want to learn more.
slantedview 3y ago
Yes, I am reducing unions to economic concerns, but I should mention that most people's "moral" objection to unions is conditioned by parties whose interest is solely economic. When the Koch foundation buys airtime on news programs (effectively) to spread the idea that unions are evil and striking is immoral, it's not because they actually care about morals, it's because unions shift the economic playing field in a way that they don't like.