3 ms·

> Unions are not perfect. Indeed, it is possible to belong to a union that is bad for workers: either because it is weak, or corrupt, or captured (or some combi

> Unions are not perfect. Indeed, it is possible to belong to a union that is bad for workers: either because it is weak, or corrupt, or captured (or some combination of the three). It's also possible to belong to a union that's bad for customers as well, as they entrench the status quo or raise prices by blocking automation. Or to ones that donate against your politics[0], which seems particularly galling. [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/teachers-unions-poured-over-40-million-into-left-wing-groups-watchdog-finds/ar-AA1LbHku https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/teachers-unions-pour...

lawlessone 11mo ago
>which seems particularly galling. Is it that galling they supported the party more likely to give teachers a favorable outcome? The idea unions shouldn't be political when some politicians want to destroy unions is silly. If the billionaires can donate to support politicians that serve their interests more than others why not workers?
- philipallstar 11mo ago
  Of course workers can. But workers can be from different political stripes, and might not want people donating their money to the opposing cause. This shouldn't something you file under "it's only bad when they, the baddies, do it to us, the goodies"[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    The purpose of the union is to attempt to consolidate worker power to improve their work conditions, not to appease every member's beliefs.
OkayPhysicist 11mo ago
Unions are political entities, because their existence in their current form (i.e., not throwing dynamite at the cops, blowing up bridges, kneecapping scabs, or dragging the foreman out of his home in the middle of the night and killing him in the street) is a legal construct, that the bosses would love to eliminate. If you're disjointed enough to belong to a union, benefit from a union, and yet hold political views that want to eliminate unions, then it really shouldn't come as some shock that your union is supporting politicians you don't.
- dylan604 11mo ago
  Not sure disjointed is the right word though. Just as a company without a union can have Norma Rae types pushing for a union, there's nothing to say that someone working in a place that requires union membership to be employed can't have their anti-Norma Rae types as well.
- danaris 11mo ago
  Well, the right wing also wants to destroy education, which is pretty bad for teachers in or out of a union. The teaching profession also has a tendency (far from a universal rule) to select for people with higher compassion and empathy, which has been outright called a "sin" by the right wing. So yeah, if you're mad at teachers' unions for supporting left-wing political causes & politicians, you're, uh, kinda barking up the wrong tree. Or upset at water for being wet. Or something.
  - philipallstar 11mo ago
    > Well, the right wing also wants to destroy education, which is pretty bad for teachers in or out of a union. Teaching has been demolished over the last 30 years under left-wing teaching practices. This isn't even close. > So yeah, if you're mad at teachers' unions for supporting left-wing political causes & politicians, you're, uh, kinda barking up the wrong tree. I'm not, and didn't say that, which probably means you were taught by someone from the US teachng profession in the last 30 years. I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to support political causes they don't believe in.
    - danaris 11mo ago
      ...Where do you get that what demolished teaching over the last 30 years is "left-wing teaching practices"? The biggest change in teaching in the past 30 years was No Child Left Behind, and...I don't know how to tell you this, but that was not under a left-wing administration. > which probably means you were taught by someone from the US teachng profession in the last 30 years Nope. > I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to support political causes they don't believe in. And you're not! No one is forcing you to support the causes the union supports. (Even if some of your dues might go toward supporting them.) Just like no one is forcing me to support the causes our current President supports. (Even if some of my taxes go to supporting them.)
dabockster 11mo ago
I think the big takeaway here is that unionization can sometimes be just trading one bad manager for another. It's not a silver bullet to fix a workplace. That being said, though, I do encourage unionization in general. But you have to be aware of which union you'd be entering into a relationship with as well.

lawlessone 11mo ago

>which seems particularly galling. Is it that galling they supported the party more likely to give teachers a favorable outcome? The idea unions shouldn't be political when some politicians want to destroy unions is silly. If the billionaires can donate to support politicians that serve their interests more than others why not workers?

philipallstar 11mo ago
Of course workers can. But workers can be from different political stripes, and might not want people donating their money to the opposing cause. This shouldn't something you file under "it's only bad when they, the baddies, do it to us, the goodies"[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  The purpose of the union is to attempt to consolidate worker power to improve their work conditions, not to appease every member's beliefs.

OkayPhysicist 11mo ago

Unions are political entities, because their existence in their current form (i.e., not throwing dynamite at the cops, blowing up bridges, kneecapping scabs, or dragging the foreman out of his home in the middle of the night and killing him in the street) is a legal construct, that the bosses would love to eliminate. If you're disjointed enough to belong to a union, benefit from a union, and yet hold political views that want to eliminate unions, then it really shouldn't come as some shock that your union is supporting politicians you don't.

dylan604 11mo ago
Not sure disjointed is the right word though. Just as a company without a union can have Norma Rae types pushing for a union, there's nothing to say that someone working in a place that requires union membership to be employed can't have their anti-Norma Rae types as well.
danaris 11mo ago
Well, the right wing also wants to destroy education, which is pretty bad for teachers in or out of a union. The teaching profession also has a tendency (far from a universal rule) to select for people with higher compassion and empathy, which has been outright called a "sin" by the right wing. So yeah, if you're mad at teachers' unions for supporting left-wing political causes & politicians, you're, uh, kinda barking up the wrong tree. Or upset at water for being wet. Or something.
- philipallstar 11mo ago
  > Well, the right wing also wants to destroy education, which is pretty bad for teachers in or out of a union. Teaching has been demolished over the last 30 years under left-wing teaching practices. This isn't even close. > So yeah, if you're mad at teachers' unions for supporting left-wing political causes & politicians, you're, uh, kinda barking up the wrong tree. I'm not, and didn't say that, which probably means you were taught by someone from the US teachng profession in the last 30 years. I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to support political causes they don't believe in.
  - danaris 11mo ago
    ...Where do you get that what demolished teaching over the last 30 years is "left-wing teaching practices"? The biggest change in teaching in the past 30 years was No Child Left Behind, and...I don't know how to tell you this, but that was not under a left-wing administration. > which probably means you were taught by someone from the US teachng profession in the last 30 years Nope. > I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to support political causes they don't believe in. And you're not! No one is forcing you to support the causes the union supports. (Even if some of your dues might go toward supporting them.) Just like no one is forcing me to support the causes our current President supports. (Even if some of my taxes go to supporting them.)

dabockster 11mo ago

I think the big takeaway here is that unionization can sometimes be just trading one bad manager for another. It's not a silver bullet to fix a workplace. That being said, though, I do encourage unionization in general. But you have to be aware of which union you'd be entering into a relationship with as well.