News of the day

timothy leary wrote: How can you be forced to join a union? There is a choice still isn't there?

No. Not if you want a job.

If you are an auto-worker in Michigan, you cannot get a job without joining the auto worker's union. The whole point of right to work laws is to change that, not to destroy or eliminate unions.

No one has yet been able to give me a convincing reason why this law is bad. They just keep changing the subject by saying "unions have a place in society and serve an important function," which nobody is disagreeing with.


Edited by thellama73 - December 12 2012 at 23:18

It isn't extremely vague and speculative.  That's the plan:  Destroy unions.  

thellama73 wrote: timothy leary wrote: How can you be forced to join a union? There is a choice still isn't there? No. Not if you want a job.

It's funny, when I say employers have coercive power over employees, the response from you and others is: "Well, you don't have to take the job", etc.  You don't even need a job if you can't find one or can't find one that pays you enough to survive.  You can sell stuff on the internet or become a street juggler.  However, when it comes to unions, suddenly, you don't have a choice, you have to have that job.   Again, Logan, you can't have it both ways. 

You can change professions.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: timothy leary wrote: How can you be forced to join a union? There is a choice still isn't there? No. Not if you want a job. It's funny, when I say employers have coercive power over employees, the response from you and others is: "Well, you don't have to take the job", etc.  You don't even need a job if you can't find one or can't find one that pays you enough to survive.  You can sell stuff on the internet or become a street juggler.  However, when it comes to unions, suddenly, you don't have a choice, you have to have that job.   Again, Logan, you can't have it both ways.  If you would actually read my posts, you would see that I disagree with right to work laws in the private sector because they prevent people from engaging in contracts as they see fit. However, I do not think a person should be forced to join a dues-collecting organization to work for the government, which we all support with our tax dollars. It is discriminatory and it is wrong. Imagine if the government required that you join the NRA in order to be employed with them. Would that be fair?

You can easily see the flaw in that argument from the libertarian perspective.  You don't have to work for the government. 

The government is no different than any other employer which the employee needs to be protected from.

I would like an answer to my earlier question. Would it be okay with you for the government to require membership in the NRA as a condition of employment?

timothy leary wrote: To me a job is a job and an employer is an employer. As for government duties and representation.....don't make me laugh.

So you are arguing that the government doesn't have a duty to represent all of its citizens. Shall we still allow women and minorities to vote, then? Or is that not part of the function of government?

I base my support or opposition to positions on whether I think they are right or wrong in principle, not on speculation about the future.

So if, say, I'm a skilled auto worker and want to work for a company but I don't want to join or pay fees to the union, I will have to remain unemployed or employed elsewhere outside of the industry while someone maybe less capable but more willing to unionize gets the position? Doesn't sound all that fair or "equal" to me but, again, I may be ignoring how this works in other states.

Here in FL there is no obbligation to join unions or anything. People usually get fired when they underperform (at least in the two places I've worked at and others via personal stories). And people, not a collective, decide what's best for each one of them.

Damn I said something good about FL!