I see no issue here. Business feels threatened and neutralizes threat.
There's nothing wrong with Unions, but there is something wrong with government-backed unions.
Let people collectivize if they'd like. Collective bargaining is fine, and you aren't living in a free country if you can't collectively bargain -- but collective bargaining shouldn't mean you automatically get government as an ally.
The battle between Union and Company should be between Union and Company.
You use the word racist to mean two different things.
The basketball team being all black isn't racism and it isn't due to racism.
If I saw a basketball team (in the NBA) of all white people, I would suspect racism, but it's important to point out that the outcome (an all white NBA team) is NOT racist in itself. Even if it is likely due to racism.
So, I think we should stop calling the outcomes 'racist' and say what we mean: "I suspect this outcome is due to racism"
I think that will make the whole conversation a lot easier to have.
I don't think its advantageous to certain political entities, however, if we have this conversation. There is one party in particular that I think relies on people to believe that their problems are outside of their control, so that maybe they'll outsource the problem solving to the government.
Maybe I have it pinned all wrong, but I will never know if we can't talk about racism and outcomes of what may or may not be racism as two separate things.
It just dawned on me that the left and right absolutely do not think of “racist” exactly the same. The left looks at outcome and the right looks at intent.
Semantics. Isn't that all basic income is? That money is coming out of the pockets of people making income. That income is coming from the pockets of employers.
What if some companies experimented with basic income? I mean, sure, people working there are probably already getting paid pretty well, and 'basic income' at that point might just seem like a small bonus to their salary, but what if it was implemented like we implemented life insurance? Hear me out:
So, you work at Company X. You and one person of your choice are now entitled to basic income. It will come as a separate check, paid for by the company. You can put your spouse, your family member, or a friend--etc. as a beneficiary of the basic income, or choose nobody at all and miss out on this "free money".
That person would have to agree to accept the money of course, and the check will be written directly to them, not you (you are not a proxy).
One main difference between this and an actual implementation of basic income is that these individuals will only receive the basic income as long as you work at Company X (unless, for some reason, the Company agrees to continue the program beyond your employment).
Another difference is that it's linked to the success and failures of this company, instead of the successes and failures of society as a whole (the latter seems less risky).
Anyway, I'm posting this more as a prompt.. What if? Do you think it's a reasonable experiment for a company to run? I know big names like Google and Facebook have some interesting perks, so why not basic income for all your employees plus 1 person of their choice, paid for by a flat % of everyone's income at the company?