Should joining a Trade Union be compulsory for all employees?

[dead0man]

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

[angus]

Yes (D). The decline of unions has almost directly coincided with the decline of the middle class of this country. Unions are currently the best way to ensure that workers receive benefits and just compensation. They fill the void left by government and its lack of guaranteed benefits and protections.

It's a double-edged sword, really.  There can be no doubt that wages, on average, are higher for union workers than non-union, ceteris paribus.  Dental and medical insurance benefits are generally better, as well as the 403(b) and 401(k) contributions by the employer.  Statistics bear this out. 

I think that unions were a net benefit for society in the days before rapid mass communication and near-universal literacy.  Sweatshops were commonplace and safety was a low priority.  With the rise of the union came the rise of aggregate and per-capita GDP, so unions in the early 20th century were a net benefit for society.  Nowadays, unions are a drag on society.  Bureaucracies are greater in union shops.  The number of man-hours spent on pushing pencils cut into the aggregate GDP.  Also, the truly exceptional workers are held back by collective bargaining agreements.  They have to accept equality with mediocre workers.  Moreover, a big part of the reason that we spend 1/6 of our aggregate GDP on medical/health services, and a big part of the decline of Detroit, is because of union negotiations that started over sixty years ago.

In any case, I'm not for banning unions.  I'm also not for compulsory union membership.  Like everything else, it ought to be an individual's choice.

[Leftbehind]

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

When they worked out the fairly basic concept that often one person's freedom is another person's misery and exploitation (ie long before busing).

[angus]

one person's freedom is another person's misery and exploitation

But coercion isn't the only solution, apparently.  I'd mentioned in another thread that I'm reading Anna Karenina.  Tolstoy's character Konstantin Dmitrievitch Levin, from the landowner class, mentally explores inequality throughout the book.  He wrestles ambivalently with the unequal distribution of wealth, even though he clearly sees peasants as incapable of self-governance.  Tolstoy himself opposed private property and thought that the aristocracy were a burden on the poor, but he advocated anarchy, non-violence, and inner peace through neighborly love as solutions to misery and exploitation.  That was also long before busing. 

[Cassius]

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

When they worked out the fairly basic concept that often one person's freedom is another person's misery and exploitation (ie long before busing).

So the idea is to redress the balance by makimg the 'privileged' person unhappy by supposedly rectifying the situation for the 'underprivileged' person. Mmmm

Anyway... No. Of course not. Aside from the increasingly limited benefits of union membership in western society to day, on this particular issue, freedom to choose whom one gives their money to is paramount.

[opebo]

I think that unions were a net benefit for society in the days before rapid mass communication and near-universal literacy.  Sweatshops were commonplace and safety was a low priority.

Good lord, your assumptions are asinine. 

Nowadays, unions are a drag on society.

So, your idea of a better society is simply one with greater inequality even than we have now?  Oh, of course it is - you're a Republican.

[Darth Plagueis]

No (R) (sane)

[opebo]

No (R) (sane)

You love to be poor?

[Leftbehind]

one person's freedom is another person's misery and exploitation

But coercion isn't the only solution, apparently.  I'd mentioned in another thread that I'm reading Anna Karenina.  Tolstoy's character Konstantin Dmitrievitch Levin, from the landowner class, mentally explores inequality throughout the book.  He wrestles ambivalently with the unequal distribution of wealth, even though he clearly sees peasants as incapable of self-governance.  Tolstoy himself opposed private property and thought that the aristocracy were a burden on the poor, but he advocated anarchy, non-violence, and inner peace through neighborly love as solutions to misery and exploitation.  That was also long before busing.  

And how many anarchists have been surpressed since that man's writings? Coercion and force is a two-way street, and those pontificating about how non-violent and without force any action should be are either destructively naive, hopelessly idealistic or - as is often the case - not terribly invested in said change.

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

When they worked out the fairly basic concept that often one person's freedom is another person's misery and exploitation (ie long before busing).

So the idea is to redress the balance by makimg the 'privileged' person unhappy by supposedly rectifying the situation for the 'underprivileged' person. Mmmm

The 'idea' is positive liberty - not all that novel a notion.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

No (R) (sane)

[angus]

And how many anarchists have been surpressed since that man's writings? Coercion and force is a two-way street, and those pontificating about how non-violent and without force any action should be are either destructively naive, hopelessly idealistic or - as is often the case - not terribly invested in said change.

Gandhi was invested in changing India's status.  Terribly so, I'd imagine.  Granted, he was probably idealistic, but not hopelessly so, nor destructively naive.  As for Bloody Sunday, isn't it possible that it was, among many other Tsarist brutalities, a motivator for the successful revolution that would happen a generation later?

My only point was that coercion by unions seems to be hypocritical, at least in the abstract.  If the existence of unions has the main effect of causing the worker to have to pay 500 dollars per year to puppetmasters and thugs in order to land the job, then they have defeated their original purpose.  A despot is a despot, whether the flag he waves be red or black.

I guess we're taking this thread a bit too far afield, although it certainly has grown interesting.  

I'm not for banning unions by any stretch.  I'm just saying that membership should be optional.

[Link]

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

1776.  If you don't want to be a part of the country... leave.

If they were voluntary they wouldn't call them taxes.  They would be called donations.  The very idea of a country is you give up certain personal "freedoms" for a much bigger payout in terms of stability, security, and general happiness.


If you don't want to join a union work at a non union shop.  Pretty simple.  You can't work at a union shop and enjoy the benefits collective bargaining gives the workers and at the same time not pay dues or participate in strikes.  That's called being a selfish self centered immature dick.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a Forum Resident True Leftist... I really don't see why this should be the case. Sure, it's great to have strong labor unions, but what's the point of forcing membership among people who aren't actually interested in labor activism? If it's only for the money it brings, then we could as well enact a "union tax" and publicly fund the unions.

I think the system used in the Scandinavians and other countries (having welfare benefits be tied to union membership) might make sense though.

[DC Al Fine]

As a Forum Resident True Leftist... I really don't see why this should be the case. Sure, it's great to have strong labor unions, but what's the point of forcing membership among people who aren't actually interested in labor activism? If it's only for the money it brings, then we could as well enact a "union tax" and publicly fund the unions.

I think the system used in the Scandinavians and other countries (having welfare benefits be tied to union membership) might make sense though.

You're a True Leftist? Perhaps you should change your sig

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a Forum Resident True Leftist... I really don't see why this should be the case. Sure, it's great to have strong labor unions, but what's the point of forcing membership among people who aren't actually interested in labor activism? If it's only for the money it brings, then we could as well enact a "union tax" and publicly fund the unions.

I think the system used in the Scandinavians and other countries (having welfare benefits be tied to union membership) might make sense though.

You're a True Leftist? Perhaps you should change your sig

Nah, not really. It's easy to confuse me with one of them, but I have some key divergences.

[opebo]

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

Your understanding of 'forcing' and 'will' is completely unrealistic, dead0man - in other words you're duped by the system that enslaves you.

[morgieb]

As a Forum Resident True Leftist... I really don't see why this should be the case. Sure, it's great to have strong labor unions, but what's the point of forcing membership among people who aren't actually interested in labor activism? If it's only for the money it brings, then we could as well enact a "union tax" and publicly fund the unions.

I think the system used in the Scandinavians and other countries (having welfare benefits be tied to union membership) might make sense though.

Yeah, I agree.

My main problem is that non-union members are able to benefit from union benefits, which I dislike.

[Link]

As a Forum Resident True Leftist... I really don't see why this should be the case. Sure, it's great to have strong labor unions, but what's the point of forcing membership among people who aren't actually interested in labor activism? If it's only for the money it brings, then we could as well enact a "union tax" and publicly fund the unions.

I think the system used in the Scandinavians and other countries (having welfare benefits be tied to union membership) might make sense though.

So you agree?

The free rider issue is the only reason union membership is compulsory.  We live in the United States not Scandinavia so we can't operate based on their rules.

I am personally pretty supportive of libertarian views.  The problem is most people aren't real libertarians.  They are only libertarians when it comes to paying the piper.  When it comes to enjoying the benefits they are as communist as everyone else.

[Maxwell]

The problem here is capitalism.

[TNF]

The problem here is capitalism.

Always is.

[Miles]

No (D).

[Gass3268]

Yes sir (D)

[Horus]

No, but I don't think the non unionized people should get the same benefits the unionized people do in this type of agreement.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, there's a disintion between a closed shop and dues check-off, right? I mean, it's not a big distinction, but it's big enough for me to support one and not the other.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When did the left fall in love with forcing people to do things against their will?  busing?

When they went from following the will of the people (for better or for worse, usually worse) to imposing their presumed better way on them. Now we are at a stage where those who oppose such are just stupid or crazy, so there is no legitimate opposition.

Varies by country, typically somewhere between 1880 and 1932.