3 ms·

Yes because if it’s one thing workers like is removing their bargaining power and relying solely on how future administrations feel about your job.

whimsicalism 2y ago
unions should not be able to negotiate against the collective will of the people and seniority based leveling has been a disaster for the government in the US, at least.
- pjc50 2y ago
  You cannot ultimately chain people to their desks. What you either get is a "soft" withdrawal of labour (people refuse to take the job if they have any other choice available, as we're discussing upthread, so you get dregs), or the whole thing explodes into "illegal" strikes. Which are harder to resolve, because you made sure there's no one organisation to negotiate with.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    the US has at-will employment, save it with the hyperbole. There are plenty of non-unionized jobs people would love to have. Collective bargaining against private actors is fine. There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people, any more than some random group of federal workers has veto power over law passed bu congress. It is simply not how democracy works.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      > There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people Presumably this also rules out any company or non-profit from negotiating a contract with the government, or suing the state.
      - azemetre 2y ago
        No you see only capital is allowed to bargain with the government, labor is not allowed to for "reasons" that somehow always seem to benefit capital at their expense.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        workers are allowed to bargain against the government, as in “i will not take the job at the pay you are offering.” both private companies and workers should not be allowed to band together to deny the government all contracts until they get the one they want.
        bumby 2y ago
        Your stance seems to be at odds with the freedom of association protected by the US Constitution.
        azemetre 2y ago
        It's way easier to understand when they just want to attack labor and absolve capital, it really is that simple for 99% of the discourse you read online.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        The protections offered to unions goes far beyond standard freedom of association. Generally I think that is okay, but not in the case of public unions.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        bumby 2y ago
        I think you may be misunderstanding. The right to join a union is the right to association. Right to association is not something provided by a union. In other words, you have a right to collectively bargain for certain working conditions and that is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      Poppycock. Being able to collectively bargain against the government is more than legal, it should be encouraged. They don't have veto power over Congress, it's about allowing workers to dictate the terms they seem fair for themselves against the US government. If Congress and the executive branch can't agree with labor terms with workers at the table, that's bad. Not having unionized federal workers is way way way worse. One thing I am curious about, how do you feel about police unions?
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        If you just want to talk about outcomes, there are a number of studies showing the negative impact public sector unions have on outcomes - for instance there is clear research causally linking union penetration in school districts to decline in student outcomes in Wisconsin. [0] > One thing I am curious about, how do you feel about police unions? Not everyone fits into two political buckets. I am extremely anti for the reasons above as well as additional reasons particular to police unions. I also favor big tax hikes, banning guns, and higher spending on housing subsidy, snap, etc. I just also think governments should be capable, student outcomes are important, the interest of voters are greater than that of govt employees, etc. 0: https://morganfoy.github.io/papers/Foy_JMP.pdf https://morganfoy.github.io/papers/Foy_JMP.pdf
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > There are plenty of non-unionized jobs people would love to have. That makes it easy for people to leave the government. The question you should be asking is: are there enough people who are sufficiently competent to take on the government roles? Case study where the workers had less power than expected: Reagan vs. air traffic controllers. Case studies where the government had less power than expected: Every coup ever, UK's Winter of Discontent (even if the long-term result was electorate going for Thatcher who gutted the unions), Polish Solidarity Movement.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      No random federal workers have veto power over the law. Never did. Having an executive with contempt for the law and the concept of separation of powers and judicial review is a perversion of democracy. The democratic rule of the people is driven by the law. What laws have the republicans passed authorizing these actions?
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        what specific actions are you talking about? e: christ, why am I downvoted for earnestly asking a question
        Spooky23 2y ago
        Many of the administrative actions, through the purging of 200k employees, are preventing activities that are required to be done by law from being done. I agree it’s unreasonable that you’re being downvoted. I disagree strongly with your position, but you’re expressing it in a completely appropriate manner.
- 4ndrewl 2y ago
  Yes they should. There are multiple wills of multiple peoples.

whimsicalism 2y ago

unions should not be able to negotiate against the collective will of the people and seniority based leveling has been a disaster for the government in the US, at least.

pjc50 2y ago
You cannot ultimately chain people to their desks. What you either get is a "soft" withdrawal of labour (people refuse to take the job if they have any other choice available, as we're discussing upthread, so you get dregs), or the whole thing explodes into "illegal" strikes. Which are harder to resolve, because you made sure there's no one organisation to negotiate with.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  the US has at-will employment, save it with the hyperbole. There are plenty of non-unionized jobs people would love to have. Collective bargaining against private actors is fine. There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people, any more than some random group of federal workers has veto power over law passed bu congress. It is simply not how democracy works.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    > There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people Presumably this also rules out any company or non-profit from negotiating a contract with the government, or suing the state.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      No you see only capital is allowed to bargain with the government, labor is not allowed to for "reasons" that somehow always seem to benefit capital at their expense.
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        workers are allowed to bargain against the government, as in “i will not take the job at the pay you are offering.” both private companies and workers should not be allowed to band together to deny the government all contracts until they get the one they want.
        bumby 2y ago
        Your stance seems to be at odds with the freedom of association protected by the US Constitution.
        azemetre 2y ago
        It's way easier to understand when they just want to attack labor and absolve capital, it really is that simple for 99% of the discourse you read online.
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        The protections offered to unions goes far beyond standard freedom of association. Generally I think that is okay, but not in the case of public unions.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        bumby 2y ago
        I think you may be misunderstanding. The right to join a union is the right to association. Right to association is not something provided by a union. In other words, you have a right to collectively bargain for certain working conditions and that is guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Poppycock. Being able to collectively bargain against the government is more than legal, it should be encouraged. They don't have veto power over Congress, it's about allowing workers to dictate the terms they seem fair for themselves against the US government. If Congress and the executive branch can't agree with labor terms with workers at the table, that's bad. Not having unionized federal workers is way way way worse. One thing I am curious about, how do you feel about police unions?
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      If you just want to talk about outcomes, there are a number of studies showing the negative impact public sector unions have on outcomes - for instance there is clear research causally linking union penetration in school districts to decline in student outcomes in Wisconsin. [0] > One thing I am curious about, how do you feel about police unions? Not everyone fits into two political buckets. I am extremely anti for the reasons above as well as additional reasons particular to police unions. I also favor big tax hikes, banning guns, and higher spending on housing subsidy, snap, etc. I just also think governments should be capable, student outcomes are important, the interest of voters are greater than that of govt employees, etc. 0: https://morganfoy.github.io/papers/Foy_JMP.pdf https://morganfoy.github.io/papers/Foy_JMP.pdf
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > There are plenty of non-unionized jobs people would love to have. That makes it easy for people to leave the government. The question you should be asking is: are there enough people who are sufficiently competent to take on the government roles? Case study where the workers had less power than expected: Reagan vs. air traffic controllers. Case studies where the government had less power than expected: Every coup ever, UK's Winter of Discontent (even if the long-term result was electorate going for Thatcher who gutted the unions), Polish Solidarity Movement.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    No random federal workers have veto power over the law. Never did. Having an executive with contempt for the law and the concept of separation of powers and judicial review is a perversion of democracy. The democratic rule of the people is driven by the law. What laws have the republicans passed authorizing these actions?
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      what specific actions are you talking about? e: christ, why am I downvoted for earnestly asking a question
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        Many of the administrative actions, through the purging of 200k employees, are preventing activities that are required to be done by law from being done. I agree it’s unreasonable that you’re being downvoted. I disagree strongly with your position, but you’re expressing it in a completely appropriate manner.
4ndrewl 2y ago
Yes they should. There are multiple wills of multiple peoples.