Then you are in a “right to work” state (or a government employee since Janus). And FYI, you still benefit from that union as you are still ostensibly part of the same collective bargaining bloc, and under the same contract, as your union coworkers.
So basically you’re getting the benefits of being in a union without having to pay dues. Sounds great, right?
Great way to get people to leave unions en masse, and starve them of funding. This kills the union.
whoever told you that is your enemy
It seems like maybe you are missing the point… The idea is to directly affect the amount of funding that a union receives, and thus, how well they are able to operate. The idea is: if you allow people who are ostensibly part of the collective bargaining bloc to simply opt out of paying fees despite receiving all of the benefits that the union provides for them, and then push anti-union propaganda, this will starve the union of funding and it will eventually break.
And it seems to have worked for several decades at least.
In the US, we’re lucky if a job is unionized at all. The thought of there being more than one option of unions to choose from is literally unheard of in this country. I mean literally. I have never heard of that ever happening in the history of the US. Maybe I’m wrong.
Look into the SCOTUS decision of Janus v. AFSCME (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME) for some more info on Right to Work, and in this case, public sector unions. The important thing to note is that it is framed as “giving the employee the freedom to choose to be in the union or not,” when in reality, they will receive all of the benefits of being in the union (they must, as they are part of the same collective bargaining bloc and covered under the same contract) for free. The entire point is to weaken unions.
That’s the whole fucking point. The name sounds like its a good thing though, right? So I’m sure that means it’s good…
But no, “Right to Work,” just means that employees are allowed to choose not to pay union dues (or even partial dues), despite receiving all of the benefits of being in that collective bargaining bloc. This is meant to starve the union and eventually kill it.
If a workplace unionizes, all employees at that level become part of the same collective bargaining bloc (by necessity), and the union will protect them and bargain on their behalf. If you want to work in that position, you have to be a member of the union at some level (unless you are a government employee since the Janus SCOTUS decision).
“Right to work” is provided under the guise of giving the employee more freedom, but in reality, it is just an underhanded way of killing unions.
Probably just made it more confusing but hopefully not.
Oh man, I did not know that Qud had a TimeCube reference…
Absolute classic.
I would have voted for the TimeCube guy over Trump.
I think it’s kind of dumb tbh. I imagine at certain times of the year, you will have farmers on one end of the country waking up in complete darkness, while others are waking up in broad daylight (I didn’t do any actual critical thought to determine if this is actually true or not, but it seems right).
Bro, who here is talking about CEOs and “The Adjuster” (cringe)?
No, but if they don’t, someone else will.
Not really… In the hypothetical (and in real life), nothing is stopping anyone from buying the property and allowing people to stay free of charge.
Won’t someone think of the “higher ups”?
It’s not even just about money, and anyone who’s worked a union job will tell you that. Many of the benefits of unions aren’t completely measurable (e.g. correcting the balance of power in favor of workers, even if just a tiny bit).
If you are asking for the arguments to make sense if you think about it for longer than 3 seconds, then you are asking too much.
So a co-op?
Like Mondragon?
Not the exact same thing, but is a step in moving society that way, but read up on Germany’s co-determination laws.
I literally thought the headline said “onions.”
Imagine my disappointment.
I’m sorry, food choices? Are you literally making a “but they smell” argument?
It doesn’t, that’s just a bullshit, half baked “argument” people like to use when someone points out to them that Scandinavian nations have figured most of this shit out already.
Yeah I was going to say Finland. Their public housing system should be an example for other nations to follow.
They won’t, of course…
Y’know, I think all I needed was getting yelled at by an old person. I’m a capitalist now! Exploit me, daddy!
Yeah sorry, I guess I’m just tired of this shit.
And I really meant that genuinely, I do remember being that naive… I remember making the exact arguments that person is making. Since then, another decade or so of life experience has informed my positions.
This is the big lie that they tell you in order to put up with the constant exploitation of living in a capitalist society.
But that’s not the fault of capitalism itself, it’s the lack of government oversight protecting us from predatory corporations.
I remember when I used to be naive enough to believe this.
The predatory corporations succeeding is capitalism succeeding.
Public Sector unions are a bit different. Or were at least.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME