3 ms·

> customers aren't able to vote no here. That's fundamentally undemocratic Union workers _are_ voters and citizens and the disenfranchised. There is almost not

> customers aren't able to vote no here. That's fundamentally undemocratic Union workers _are_ voters and citizens and the disenfranchised. There is almost nothing _more_ democratic than organised action. If they cause inconvenience through that action, that is intended to be political pressure. If you dislike them because of those effects, that is removing their right to effectively collectively act and bargain.

vintagedave 10mo ago
I see I was very rapidly downvoted. Let me expand: the history of labor rights, environmental protests, and many others have all been through disruption. Take a completely difference example: anti-logging. Logging protesters march through the streets, disrupting traffic and making people late for work. (Legal marches.) Or they sit up trees and chain themselves, preventing the trees from being cut. (Usually illegal.) Both these get significant attention. Democracy is rife with examples like this. How did the suffragettes get the vote? By protest. Yet many other groups would have -- and have tried -- to prevent these protests and actions, just like the 'customers' cited in the comment I replied to. That's my point: to call being able to prevent that 'democratic' is outside the past century and a half of modern Western democratic history.
Aurornis 10mo ago
> If you dislike them because of those effects, that is removing their right to effectively collectively act and bargain. Disliking a group does not remove any of their rights. Everyone has the right to dislike or disagree with another group. Nobody has to agree with you or support your different opinions. That's fundamental.
jtbayly 10mo ago
They are a minority of voters, though. And they get to unilaterally declare things that the vast majority don't get to vote on. I don't think you're making a good case.
- toomuchtodo 10mo ago
  Support for unions in the US is at record highs (~70%), well above a majority of voters. If you slice by age cohort, highest support is Gen Z, lowest support are oldest cohorts (Boomers, Silent), which are aging out ~2M/year (55+ age cohort) [1]. Interestingly and very recently (December 11th, 2025), the US House recently voted on a bill to restore collective bargaining rights for a majority of federal employees [2]. House lawmakers voted 231-195 to pass the Protect America’s Workforce Act [3]. The entire Democratic Caucus, along with 20 Republicans, voted in favor of the legislation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45851620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45851620 (citations) [2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2025/12/house-passes-bill-to-restore-collective-bargaining-for-federal-employees/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2025/12/house-passes... [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2550 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2550
  - jtbayly 10mo ago
    None of this addresses what I said.
- IAmBroom 10mo ago
  So, sincere question: If grocery workers go on strike, they (a minority of voters) could keep you from getting your groceries. Same or different?
  - jtbayly 10mo ago
    I don't think that particular example focuses on the right thing to make the comparison similar. The point isn't that education (in general) can't happen during a strike or that you can't get groceries (in general) during the strike you mention. The point is that education union is a small minority controlling what education is available, regardless of what the public wants. To make your analogy similar, I think you could compare to grocery workers refusing to allow meat to be sold in grocery stores because a large portion of them are vegans, regardless of what the general public wants.
jaredklewis 10mo ago
I’m fine with the right to collectively act and bargain in some abstract sense. In practice, I observed that police unions, for example, seem to be too effective at protecting their members’ interests at the expensive of the public’s. They seem more like a mafia. If tech or game workers or whoever wants to unionize, fine with me.
- krainboltgreene 10mo ago
  That is because police are class traitors. They serve the bourgeoisie. That's also why police unions are allowed to be insanely powerful.
- danaris 10mo ago
  Police unions are the single example of a union that cannot be allowed to exist unchecked, because their primary purpose is to remove restrictions on the power of the police. Given that the police are already the group charged with enforcing the law, this has the effect of putting them above the law. Systemically, police unions are completely different than other unions, public or private sector.
  - jaredklewis 10mo ago
    I see similar dynamic (though not as extreme) with many public sector unions. For example, the pensions for public sector in Illinois are crazy generous. People can retire at 55 or 60 (with enough years of service), and get 85% of their final salary, untaxed in perpetuity. I want them to be fairly compensated but those pensions go far beyond that and dominate the state budget. The pensions are funded by taxes, paid by everyone, including lots of ordinary people working much less well paying jobs. How did they arrange this? Politics. It’s not like with a company where there really is a level of compensation that the company cannot afford and the company just can’t go higher than that. The politicians couldn’t give a shit if they put the state in debt for many generations to come. That’s a future Illinois problem and they’ll be long retired. They want those union votes now and so they say “sure, whatever you want.” I have no qualms about private sector unions which don’t have these issues.

vintagedave 10mo ago

I see I was very rapidly downvoted. Let me expand: the history of labor rights, environmental protests, and many others have all been through disruption. Take a completely difference example: anti-logging. Logging protesters march through the streets, disrupting traffic and making people late for work. (Legal marches.) Or they sit up trees and chain themselves, preventing the trees from being cut. (Usually illegal.) Both these get significant attention. Democracy is rife with examples like this. How did the suffragettes get the vote? By protest. Yet many other groups would have -- and have tried -- to prevent these protests and actions, just like the 'customers' cited in the comment I replied to. That's my point: to call being able to prevent that 'democratic' is outside the past century and a half of modern Western democratic history.

Aurornis 10mo ago

> If you dislike them because of those effects, that is removing their right to effectively collectively act and bargain. Disliking a group does not remove any of their rights. Everyone has the right to dislike or disagree with another group. Nobody has to agree with you or support your different opinions. That's fundamental.

jtbayly 10mo ago

They are a minority of voters, though. And they get to unilaterally declare things that the vast majority don't get to vote on. I don't think you're making a good case.

toomuchtodo 10mo ago
Support for unions in the US is at record highs (~70%), well above a majority of voters. If you slice by age cohort, highest support is Gen Z, lowest support are oldest cohorts (Boomers, Silent), which are aging out ~2M/year (55+ age cohort) [1]. Interestingly and very recently (December 11th, 2025), the US House recently voted on a bill to restore collective bargaining rights for a majority of federal employees [2]. House lawmakers voted 231-195 to pass the Protect America’s Workforce Act [3]. The entire Democratic Caucus, along with 20 Republicans, voted in favor of the legislation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45851620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45851620 (citations) [2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2025/12/house-passes-bill-to-restore-collective-bargaining-for-federal-employees/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2025/12/house-passes... [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2550 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2550
- jtbayly 10mo ago
  None of this addresses what I said.
IAmBroom 10mo ago
So, sincere question: If grocery workers go on strike, they (a minority of voters) could keep you from getting your groceries. Same or different?
- jtbayly 10mo ago
  I don't think that particular example focuses on the right thing to make the comparison similar. The point isn't that education (in general) can't happen during a strike or that you can't get groceries (in general) during the strike you mention. The point is that education union is a small minority controlling what education is available, regardless of what the public wants. To make your analogy similar, I think you could compare to grocery workers refusing to allow meat to be sold in grocery stores because a large portion of them are vegans, regardless of what the general public wants.

jaredklewis 10mo ago

I’m fine with the right to collectively act and bargain in some abstract sense. In practice, I observed that police unions, for example, seem to be too effective at protecting their members’ interests at the expensive of the public’s. They seem more like a mafia. If tech or game workers or whoever wants to unionize, fine with me.

krainboltgreene 10mo ago
That is because police are class traitors. They serve the bourgeoisie. That's also why police unions are allowed to be insanely powerful.
danaris 10mo ago
Police unions are the single example of a union that cannot be allowed to exist unchecked, because their primary purpose is to remove restrictions on the power of the police. Given that the police are already the group charged with enforcing the law, this has the effect of putting them above the law. Systemically, police unions are completely different than other unions, public or private sector.
- jaredklewis 10mo ago
  I see similar dynamic (though not as extreme) with many public sector unions. For example, the pensions for public sector in Illinois are crazy generous. People can retire at 55 or 60 (with enough years of service), and get 85% of their final salary, untaxed in perpetuity. I want them to be fairly compensated but those pensions go far beyond that and dominate the state budget. The pensions are funded by taxes, paid by everyone, including lots of ordinary people working much less well paying jobs. How did they arrange this? Politics. It’s not like with a company where there really is a level of compensation that the company cannot afford and the company just can’t go higher than that. The politicians couldn’t give a shit if they put the state in debt for many generations to come. That’s a future Illinois problem and they’ll be long retired. They want those union votes now and so they say “sure, whatever you want.” I have no qualms about private sector unions which don’t have these issues.