Freedom of Association

[LVH2]

I don't know about "liberty" but I'd also add that unions existing tend to promote other stepping stones to freedom and/or more choices. Healthcare, the enforcement of labor laws, good wages, job security. These things allow you to do stuff like buy and keep a home, or take vacations.

You know what Benjamin Franklin said about sacrificing liberty.

But, in this case, we have competing freedoms, which many consider liberties. (I don't know your precise usage of liberty).

I want a union job. I want the freedom of association to be able to join a union.

Skipper wants to work at the docks and enjoy the benefits secured by the union, but he wants the freedom to do that without joining a union.

Since Skipper can work a non-union job, it already seems to me that his freedom is the least compromised. The fact that unions are a bridge to even more freedom makes it a slam dunk.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's telling that capitalism, in order that it be propped up, requires us to surrender ever more natural rights. It's not evil-by-design like the various forms of Marxism, but at some point I think a reasonable person should be able to recognize that it's drawing near the end of this particular system. Something else has to follow, but it's not clear what comes next.

Capitalism necessitates incorporation in order that investors can collectivize and compete on larger scales than they can individually. This works out for us all because it means massive corporations can form that collectivize capital in excess of the GDP of small nations, which in turn means they can innovate and produce at a scale not otherwise possible. But the advent of incorporation also necessitated the advent of unions. Industrialization kicked off in earnest around the 1870s. Within twenty years we saw major agitation for labor organization to match the power of the corporations. They mirror one another. A union is a natural response to incorporation.

[Martin Hash]

I don't know about "liberty" but I'd also add that unions existing tend to promote other stepping stones to freedom and/or more choices. Healthcare, the enforcement of labor laws, good wages, job security. These things allow you to do stuff like buy and keep a home, or take vacations.

You know what Benjamin Franklin said about sacrificing liberty.

But, in this case, we have competing freedoms, which many consider liberties. (I don't know your precise usage of liberty).

I want a union job. I want the freedom of association to be able to join a union.

Skipper wants to work at the docks and enjoy the benefits secured by the union, but he wants the freedom to do that without joining a union.

Since Skipper can work a non-union job, it already seems to me that his freedom is the least compromised. The fact that unions are a bridge to even more freedom makes it a slam dunk.

Did you just pull an Orwell? Forced association is free association

[LVH2]

Not that I know of.

Firstly, nobody FORCES you to take a job in a union shop. It's quite easy not to. Just as you can move somewhere without an HOA. Just as you are not forced to work for a particular corporation. Or, to DSLs point, become a shareholder in one.

Now let's say I want to be in a union, as millions of people do. If you eliminate or sabotage unions, then you have hampered their freedom of association. You can't join something that doesn't exist.

These people are all individuals too, and they all want that option.

There is a minor dilemma in that, you can't join a union shop, reap the benefits of the union, and then refuse to join. As with an HOA. Also can't receive dividends from a company I don't join.

We exactly is this a great cost to liberty? And why is it greater than not having any strong unions to join at all?

By default, I will favor that which gives people the greater number of options. (Now tack on the options created by having healthcare, PTO, etc.)

[Martin Hash]

I suppose there's other things all the workers could vote on before anyone could get hired. Hmmm... D&D? Can we make it so everyone has to play D&D?

p.s. And it will be in the contract, and everyone has to pay every month to the Dungeon Master, who can do whatever the fuck he wants with the money.
p.s.s. Or if you don't like that, how about circumcision? Women too.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sign me up!

[StCapps]

Where's DB's Freedom Dog meme when you need it?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'm sure it was in the interest of maximum freedom that the National Guard was called up to smash union strikes.

I can't remember if the same thing ever happened on the behalf of insufficiently free industrialists.

[LVH2]

I still don't see what's so special about unions here. What if an HOA did things like that?

Corporations kind of do stuff like that already. Million dollar christmas parties and box seats at MSG for the execs. Doubt the pensioners really dig that. Nor the top level salaries that are determined by people who are all pals. But, if you want the dividends, you deal with it.

ASFIK, no unions are demanding circumcision or doing anything comparably ridiculous. Their primary function still seems to be collectively bargaining better terms for workers. If they did, people would probably quit or vote the union out, both of which are options they have.

61% of Americans approve of Unions in general. Obviously, the number among people who might be in a position to join one is much higher.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/217331/labo ... -2003.aspx

So all of these people want the option of joining a union. Why shouldn't that option be readily available?

Why is it such an impediment to liberty for the minority who prefer no union, to get a non union job?

Sign me up!

[Speaker to Animals]

If we get rid of organized labor laws, then we also need to get rid of patents, copyrights, and every other exclusivity under the law equivalent for investors.

I can deal with both or neither. It's those hypocritical positions of one but not the other that chafe against good reason and principle.