At the expense of whataboutism, I'd love to see some kind of legislation against themselves as opposed to trying to bring these business entities under their heel. Something along the lines of: "GOP and Democratic party hold a duopolistic power over significant portions of our political representation options. This duopoly moment must end" (borrowed from the article and replaced appropriately).
Every business that they are trying to "crackdown" against faces varying levels of competition in almost every space they are in, and consumers either have numerous options to choose from to get a particular service, or the default that they end up using on is actually the best among the available alternatives.
God forbid politicians focus on taking action against actual monopolies as opposed to these stupid theatrics.
> So? It's totally at the employer's discretion, and there are a million other things that are non-negotiable.
Sure. But it is between you and your employer, and it is not unilaterally dictated by you or by your employer. Also, an unrelated third party doesn't have a say in the agreement you have between you and your employer. If there are some things that are unacceptable to you(for eg, having a manager to report to), you and the potential employer can shake hands and go away from each other.
> Do you oppose all labor law? If it's "the employer's choice/will" to employ young children in dangerous conditions, do you oppose the "legal binding" prevents them from doing that?
From discussing a legal binding around closed union shops to opposing "all labor laws" is quite a leap and also a strawman. But to answer your question, no I don't oppose such a law that says children cannot be employed in dangerous conditions like mines etc.
> That's not actually true. If the worker's unhappy, they can work with their coworkers to decertify the union.
Yeah so clearly something that can and should be between you and your employer has to now involve other colleagues and you end up with varying degrees of coercion basically.
> However, if their coworkers are happy with it, then maybe that guy should just get another job.
Or, the easier and simpler route is to leave the union and possibly join another union operating at the same place(if such a thing were to be allowed), or not join any union at all and still work for the employer. More freedom/choice for every worker, lesser or possibly no coercion and less disruptive for the employer, and more importantly, less disruptive for the worker.
It is absolutely absurd that just because set of workers are happy with their working arrangements, a different set of workers cannot get their working arrangements that are more suited to them. Or, in other words, two functioning adult parties are ready to come to a potential agreement that concerns just them, with both of them getting what they want, but some third party who is not and should not be privy to this agreement will not get what they want, and so the actual participants in the agreement cannot make the deal they want, and instead their options are to be coerced into a deal that they wouldn't want, or drop the deal altogether.
> It's not like union shops are pervasive and unavoidable. They're actually pretty rare these days.
Certainly unavoidable if its a closed union shop no? Which is the very thing that we are discussing. And I am glad that they are rare.
> Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all.
Most employers will allow changing teams/managers internally. Also, you can discuss it with your employer and if you can convince them that you will be able to be productive and relevant without the need for a manager, some employers will actually entertain this request. Several startups actually have a very flattish structure and very loosely defined hierarchy.
> The employer used its "monopoly" to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard.
It isn't a double standard. A closed union shop is clearly different, because it is not the employer's choice/will, but rather a legal binding. In the absence of such a binding, there wouldn't be any closed union shops. There is no legal binding on employers to assign managers to employees. It is an employer's choice/will/culture.
In a closed union shop, the worker who doesn't want to deal with the union isn't happy, and the employer isn't happy either. Both, the worker and the employer cannot do anything to change that. In your "forced management" example, it is just you who are unhappy, and you can try to make changes in your existing workplace with the possibility of some success, or find a new workplace.
Which basically reinforces GP's point about it being a monopoly?
> If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace.
Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union.
Why can't workers have a choice - whoever sees the union's being a better fit can join the n number of unions operating at a single employer. Whoever wants to remain free from the union can choose not to join, and negotiate with the employer directly.
I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. IF the worker wants to work for that employer, he can only do so via the union. No way for the worker to work for the employer and not wanting to do absolutely nothing with the union.
Thank god and whoever else for this. This is amazing. I realize and understand a segment of HN readers are sympathetic to unions(the American version too), and some are vocal advocates as well, but I am absolutely elated at this outcome.
Edit: Question: Can this vote also be taken as a proxy indicator of the working conditions not being anywhere close to what the sensational and click-bait media pieces point out to be?
Every business that they are trying to "crackdown" against faces varying levels of competition in almost every space they are in, and consumers either have numerous options to choose from to get a particular service, or the default that they end up using on is actually the best among the available alternatives.
God forbid politicians focus on taking action against actual monopolies as opposed to these stupid theatrics.