Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Powder Miner]

My issue is with the coercion aspect of it, here -- I don't want to wage an all-out war against unions, but if that stability requires that non-union workers be forced to pay fines, then I am against the mechanic that does that.

And another argument: the argument that business put paying stipulations into their contracts runs afoul of the fact that just because one person or group does something bad does not mean it's OK when another does it. For a questionably relevant analogy, Tsarist Russia brutally mistreated its peasants... and so did the Soviet Union, later. Neither of these governments' treatment of the poor farmers validates the other's, and just the same, just because businesses pull stuff like making you buy your hats (though I personally doubt it compares) it by no means validates unions directly making people pay.

[lemon10]

To be fair, if the union wasn't around you would be making significantly less (presuming that the company pays union and non-union members the same) anyways.

But I do agree that it is rather obnoxious to have to pay money to an organization that you don't belong to.

[smirk]

It's not a great system, but it's not something you go into unknowingly either. The union doesn't sneak up behind you and siphon out of your wallet when you aren't looking; when you apply for a job that has a union you're made aware of the fees and such. Or should be. And most people will go into that willingly because the job is still better than a non-union one. (Don't like the union's politics? Don't join, don't pay full dues and get bothered endlessly to give to charity-a-thons!) It can be shitty in the same way that businesses too often act, but in that case it's often symptomatic of a bad union that needs to be torn down and re-worked. I dunno. I'm not an expert in union finance so I can't say how easy those fees would be to replace in some other manner, but the danger of getting rid of them across the board and destabilising all unions seems like it outweighs the potential benefit of easing workers in places with shitty unions. Too sweeping a change for problems that should have more targeted solutions.

[Powder Miner]

To be fair, if the union wasn't around you would be making significantly less (presuming that the company pays union and non-union members the same) anyways.

I'll be upfront here and admit I'm not part of the workplace at all -- still a high schooler and a dependent, I don't need to support my family, and I don't tend to spend a lot of money.
So, yeah, I actually don't have a personal stake in this, which probably does weaken my argument.
Still... I WILL have a job soon enough, since I'm not getting paid through college, that's for sure.

[mainiac]

But you signed up for the job, and both sides of the arrangement (you, the business) agreed to it willingly.

Yeah sure, you voluntarily agreed to enter into an unequal negoation.  This is the exact same blurring of the lines between acquiescence and choice that make conservatives so mad when it's schools giving out condoms.  But when its "free" markets suddenly it's happy days are here again.

But hey, the choice of whether to use a free condom is made under way more duress then the choice to take a job to put a roof over your head, right?

At the end of the day I'm a pretty crappy political philosopher.  But I can note that people say willing contract because they are suggesting things.  They are suggesting fair negotiations between equals.  And that really, really doesn't happen.  If it did then unionization wouldn't lead to wage premiums, not just for the unionized workers but within the unionized sector or region.

[Powder Miner]

Schools can hand out condoms all they want. I have absolutely no issue with that and in fact support it.

[mainiac]

Okay then give me something else to throw at you. 

[Powder Miner]

man i dunno, i'm bad at thinking about the glaring horrific flaws in my political philosophy until someone questions me

[mainiac]

man i dunno, i'm bad at thinking about the glaring horrific flaws in my political philosophy until someone questions me

Do you believe that someone charged $100 for a speeding ticket is entitled to a trial by jury or can a judge make a ruling?

[Powder Miner]

Ooh, I like that question.
I'd say that for something that minor, a judge can make a ruling, albeit with a system in place to ensure impartiality, which I believe our current system encourages. To give every single matter of crime a trial by jury is impossible both on a scale of manpower (how many people would you have to snatch and compel into jury duty) and on a scale of time: to delay every proceeding that long, one necessarily would have to severely delay justice and the process of law in the situations where it really matters. The appeals process exists to ensure that if the judge is wrong intentionally or unintentionally the decision is not omnipotent and final.

[RedKing]

FYI...Alex Jones has it on good authority ("his gut"...and maybe the fillings in his teeth) that Scalia was assassinated. If so, then I can genuinely say,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[TheBiggerFish]

man i dunno, i'm bad at thinking about the glaring horrific flaws in my political philosophy until someone questions me

Do you believe that someone charged $100 for a speeding ticket is entitled to a trial by jury or can a judge make a ruling?

I think that the state of the law is that they can have a jury trial but don't need to do so?

[Amperzand]

Indeed. I can't say my opinion of Obama would go anywhere but up if he used some of our bloated military budget for the purpose of eliminating corrupt and hidebound politicians.

[TheBiggerFish]

Exactly.

[Strife26]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.