Yup, this is just as important in my view. Tangentially related: one of the places my wife worked at had a union that "pretty much everyone joins" because they charge union fees from every worker regardless of whether they join the union or not. I don't understand how they could mandate something like that, and the idea didn't sit well with me. It's a classic case of taxation without representation!

Why is it bad to be forced to deal with the union and contribute to union dues, but fine to be forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits?

Why is it bad? It's bad because it takes away freedom and agency from the working class, and workers rights is something I care about.

I'm not sure I get that, really. If you care about the material conditions of workers today, as they are experiencing them, the greatest threat to their agency by far is the asset owners they work for.

There is probably an abstract, theoretical future where worker freedom is significantly curtailed by union power, I guess. But being more concerned with that hypothetical than with the genuine exploitation that is the baseline for low wage labor doesn't read as caring about worker rights to me.

I assume you're writing this from the viewpoint that I consider unions to be ineffective or evil, even. I am not.

I share your concerns regarding the owners whose powers often go unchecked in corporate America, and I completely agree that we're reaching dangerous levels.

But I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. No, the anecdote I brought up is, in fact, the least hypothetical thing in this conversation thread. My wife examined the union pamphlet that was handed to her, decided that the union did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to pay the union dues. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever, and actively made her conditions worse by heaping on unwanted taxes that she felt was also priced disproportionately. Yet she had no voice in this matter.

Organize a union, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your union deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. Fight the greedy owners, great. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the union. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair. The fact that workers are already being exploited by greedy corporations does not excuse bad union behaviors, period.

No, I wasn't quite assuming you are anti-union, but that is one of the most common bits of anti-union propaganda. There's a true issue there but I don't think it's proportional to the amount of time this specific problem gets in these discussions.

I think it comes down to what you expect from people who are being treated poorly. Do you only accept "pure" moral acts as valid? Is small unfairness to a few justified to prevent large unfairness to many? It seems like we have different answers to these questions, but I don't think either can be dismissed as inherently against worker freedom or agency.

I care very very much about practical power for people who need it right now. I care a lot less about abstract freedoms that material conditions prevent people from being able to act on.

I think we reached a good point for the conversation. You're correct in your assessment: I do place a lot of faith and values in empowering individual freedom and agency, so any brush with authoritarian entities usually leave me grumpy. I hope for humanities sake that public opinion of unions in America never devolve into something like that of HOAs.

Thanks for engaging, and have a good one.

You're conflating democracy and capitalism. In a free and democratic society, individual freedom and agency is imperative. Capitalism is a top-down dictatorship, a mini-monarchy that anyone with money can spin up.

You can't try to misappropriate ideals meant for humanity in general, to a system that's a dictatorship. One you need to involve yourself in just to survive.

That's why there's unions, to help level the bargaining table. Otherwise there's too much power on one side, the one holding all the cards/capital. It stops the race to the bottom.

A very similar thing happened to my wife. My wife examined the company mission statement that was handed to her, decided that the company did not represent her needs adequately, but was told she'd still need to contribute to shareholder profits. This is not enabling her agency whatsoever. Yet she had no voice in this matter.

Organize a corporation, yes - you have my full support. Represent whichever needs your corporation deems to be important, yup - I'm behind it. But don't extort money from those who made the active decision to not be a part of the shareholder profit contribution scheme. This is an active intrusion of her agency, and a real event that I brought up because I didn't think think it was fair.

Why does being forced to deal with management and contribute to shareholder profits not take away freedom and agency from the working class?

When did I make this claim? I hate seeing these snarky takes on HN. Lots of things take away agency from the working class: like employer-centric insurance system, complex and regressive taxes, etc.

But you already knew these things and you also knew that the topic on hand was about unions. God forbid anyone say anything critical about THAT. If you have a point to make, get right to it instead of hiding behind snark.

Edit: nevermind guy. I can see others have already tried. Cheers.

Where's the snark? I'm asking you why if you're opposed to mandatory contribution of union dues by employees, you're not similarly opposed to mandatory contribution to shareholder profits by employees. It's a 100% genuine question.

Your point is actually very interesting to me. I've never heard that before. I get it- maybe I "don't wanna" contribute to x, y, or z. What right do I have to do about those things? That "takes away my agency and freedom", right?

I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involved, you can just find another job! Same solution I'm presented if I prefer profits to go into my pocket, rather than someone else's.

Thanks, I’m glad somebody has grasped the point I’m making - which is that the whole system is built around coercion, so singling out one arbitrary part of it as involuntary is completely inconsistent and ideological.

This is a textbook example of loosing at the prisoner's dilemma due to selfishness. The only way you get a better contract then the union is if the company intentionally does it to spite the union.

You are authoritarian - forcing people to do something that should be accomplished voluntarily is antithetical to freedom

The baseline condition of labor, that those doing it must continue to do it or they will die, is inherently much more authoritarian than this.

I'm not at all arguing for an "ends justify the means" position here, just pointing out that the condition we're talking about is already a morally compromised one, and so people won't always have the freedom to operate purely in line with their moral preferences. Or yours.

Because, importantly, which specific things "should be accomplished voluntarily" is an idealogical position we won't always share. There is already much coercion foundational to our society, maybe you can find another one to oppose on purely abstract moral grounds.

Nope I don’t want to join a union and any attempt to make me will be fought aggressively. Just my preference not to be forced to pay money to people I did not ask to represent me.

Well that would be a lot more things in life. But you only choose to use that logic against the ONE thing that actually could better your existence, along with millions of others? That just doesn't sit well. You have all sorts of government structures that you contribute to, that you never asked for. Ultimately, you can just find a job that suits you.

But if the world was 90% union, I guarantee you would NOT choose the remaining non-union jobs, because the difference in pay and treatment would be so stark (as it is today already), then you'd shed your views for your own betterment.

Then welcome to the fight we're trying to get rid of the cops next.

I don’t want to “get rid of the cops” either because I’m not a psychopath. I very much don’t want to be robbed and murdered!

Why is it authoritarian and bad to be forced to interact with the union, but fine to be forced to interact with management?

Can always get a new job. But if every company has a monopoly union, can’t avoid that.

Really don’t understand the reasoning to not making union membership voluntary. Completely illogical. Basically you agree it’s authoritarian but “it’s better than the alternative” which is bullshit.

Can always get a new job. But if every company has shareholders, can’t avoid that. Really don’t understand the reasoning to not making contributing to shareholder profit voluntary. Completely illogical. Basically you agree it’s authoritarian but “it’s better than the alternative” which is bullshit.

There are worker co-ops and communal living groups. No one forces you to join a traditional corporation. You could also (gasp!) start your own company… But that’s a lot of work!

You've misunderstood. I want to work at the company, I just don't want to be forced to contribute shareholder profits - just like you want to work at the company but don't want to be forced to contribute union dues.

The goal of a for-profit business is to make money. There are plenty of non-profits and government jobs if you don’t want to get with the program. You may be shocked to find a lot of non-profits also need to make cash to survive, however.

Again you've seemed to misunderstand. I'm happy to work at the company and make money, I just don't want to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits, just like you don't want to be forced to contribute to union dues. Why should one be voluntary but not the other?

I voluntarily join a company. Me paying some third-party non-governmental organization to “represent” me when I never asked for it is the issue.

However we keep going in circles and it is clear you are illogical.

Similarly, I voluntarily join a company. Me paying some third-party shareholders when I never asked for it is the issue.

Where’s the lack of logic? The real issue is you won’t even begin to engage in explaining why these two things are different. It suggests to me you haven’t arrived at this position rationally, but through ideology (“corporations good, unions bad”).

Indeed. And remember that any union that's actually good for workers would have no reason to oppose such a right.

Should you also have the right to work at the company and not be forced to contribute to shareholder profits? Surely any management that was actually good for workers would have no reason to oppose such a measure.

I'm not asking to be in the union but not pay the dues. I'm asking to not be in the union.

I’m not asking to be considered a profit contributor but not contribute to profits. I’m asking to not be a profit contributor.

Isn't that just not being an employee? And no company can not let you quit.

No, I want to be an employee. I simply don't want to be forced to join the shareholder profit contributors group, as that would be an attack on liberty, free association, and voluntarism.

"If cooperation is actually the better choice in the prisoner's dilemma, why do you care if I defect?"

What prisoners' dilemma? What part of collective bargaining agreements give benefits to employees who choose not to join the union?

All sorts of benefits bleed over to non-union employees. In fact, unions have had an upward effect on wages and benefits for management in many corporations that I've worked at. Along with upward effects on wages within society overall.

Why should you have the right to work at a company withing joining the union, but not have the right to work at the company without generating money for shareholders?