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.