Vaccine

[espola]

Rumors are flying that Los Angeles Co is about to announce new sports restrictions....don't know what they are or if the rumor is true....Ferrer should be speaking shortly for her usual brief.

"don't know what they are or if the rumor is true"

Is that your new standard for posting?

 

[Grace T.]

"don't know what they are or if the rumor is true"

Is that your new standard for posting?

It's why I qualified it....if folks are interested they should tune in to the talk which begins shortly.

 

[whatithink]

Your 3 is built on some wrong assumptions. The laws on certification of unions are not agreed to by employers and unions. They are set out in law which provides the procedures. One issue with the law as structured is that it does not provide for roaming consent (e.g. if the entire work force changes in 1 year the new workforce is still bound by rules agreed by people who are not them). They can't deviate from that formula since it's set out in law....there's no "agreement". Furthermore, you aren't accounting for people who voted no on union certification (or who would periodically vote no on a rolling certificate)...they are already employed and did not consent to the change.

So the new workforce in your hypothetical can't vote to un-certify? The ones who voted no stayed, hence agreed with the resulting change (by staying). They can leave if they feel strongly enough about it.

 

[Grace T.]

So the new workforce in your hypothetical can't vote to un-certify? The ones who voted no stayed, hence agreed with the resulting change (by staying). They can leave if they feel strongly enough about it.

There's a process to decertify. It was made deliberately hard. If we cared about democracy, you'd pick a time period (e.g. yearly) to make sure you had robust consent.

You are back to authoritarianism now....if you don't like it, quit the job you have (and maybe like) because the majority can impose its will on you, even though you did not consent. I just disagree with that. I like unions, think they are a great idea but hate removing consent from people, particularly for public employment.

 

[espola]

I'm gonna have to ask my kid to teach me how to turn on the beep that indicates when the thing is done translating. Unfortunately, I'm not very tech savvy. He thought I didn't need it as it's pretty self-evident even to the dog....guess he was wrong. The gadget is a wonder, though. Best Christmas present ever.

Tell us more about the French Revolution.

 

[whatithink]

There's a process to decertify. It was made deliberately hard. If we cared about democracy, you'd pick a time period (e.g. yearly) to make sure you had robust consent.

You are back to authoritarianism now....if you don't like it, quit the job you have (and maybe like) because the majority can impose its will on you, even though you did not consent. I just disagree with that. I like unions, think they are a great idea but hate removing consent from people, particularly for public employment.

So when a company mandates something for its employees and their only recourse is to leave, if they don't like it, that's authoritarianism - which it must be by your lose premise above.

It could be worse, the minority could impose their will on you ... maybe like a Pres voted in by the minority and a senate "majority" representing a minority of the people loading the courts ... isn't that authoritarianism too then?

For what its worth, I firmly believe that the extremes of both left & right love authoritarianism, but only if they are in charge. There are plenty of shenanigans currently going, on that point, in this country currently.

A plethora of current working conditions, that we take for granted, were hard won by unions. None of them were given freely or willingly. People forget that or just ignore it. I think unions have their place.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

"don't know what they are or if the rumor is true"

Is that your new standard for posting?

So. Fucking. Worthless. Everytime.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

So. Fucking. Worthless. Everytime.

Must you sob in public?

 

[Grace T.]

So when a company mandates something for its employees and their only recourse is to leave, if they don't like it, that's authoritarianism - which it must be by your lose premise above.

It could be worse, the minority could impose their will on you ... maybe like a Pres voted in by the minority and a senate "majority" representing a minority of the people loading the courts ... isn't that authoritarianism too then?

For what its worth, I firmly believe that the extremes of both left & right love authoritarianism, but only if they are in charge. There are plenty of shenanigans currently going, on that point, in this country currently.

A plethora of current working conditions, that we take for granted, were hard won by unions. None of them were given freely or willingly. People forget that or just ignore it. I think unions have their place.

I agree that unions have their place. Love em. I just don’t think they have the right to override individual consent and they don’t in all states.

Employers are limited by what they can impose on employees under law. There’s a ton of restrictions. A lot of those were in employment law reforms, not through unions

your political argument is not relevant. We do not live in a democracy. Ialso think the idea of yearly voting unions is not really necessary if you honor consent but you guys were the ones that argued democracy. I care more about liberty.

 

[whatithink]

I agree that unions have their place. Love em. I just don’t think they have the right to override individual consent and they don’t in all states.

Employers are limited by what they can impose on employees under law. There’s a ton of restrictions. A lot of those were in employment law reforms, not through unions

your political argument is not relevant. We do not live in a democracy. Ialso think the idea of yearly voting unions is not really necessary if you honor consent but you guys were the ones that argued democracy. I care more about liberty.

Unions are also bound by laws, just like employers. So if the former can be authoritarian (legally) then the latter can be also.

You brought up authoritarianism & politics (via the government linkage), so my political analogy is relevant.

I've pointed out that you have a choice and are at liberty to do what you want, join or not. You just don't like the choice and are hiding behind the liberty nonsense. Liberty doesn't mean you always get your way or to do what you want - it does mean you have a choice, so your liberty is just fine in this instance (unions in the workplace).

 

[Grace T.]

Unions are also bound by laws, just like employers. So if the former can be authoritarian (legally) then the latter can be also.

You brought up authoritarianism & politics (via the government linkage), so my political analogy is relevant.

I've pointed out that you have a choice and are at liberty to do what you want, join or not. You just don't like the choice and are hiding behind the liberty nonsense. Liberty doesn't mean you always get your way or to do what you want - it does mean you have a choice, so your liberty is just fine in this instance (unions in the workplace).

Comply or lose your job is not a choice in my book.

employers cannot be coercive. They act on consent not slavery. It’s not equivalent. That’s why we have employment law to limit what employees can and can’t demand. There’s no equivalent restrictions for union in closed shop states.

 

[whatithink]

Comply or lose your job is not a choice in my book.

employers cannot be coercive. They act on consent not slavery. It’s not equivalent. That’s why we have employment law to limit what employees can and can’t demand. There’s no equivalent restrictions for union in closed shop states.

You have to accept the job to lose it - once you accept, you have agreed to comply. So you make your choice at the door, enter or not >> liberty in action. If you subsequently decide you don't like your choice, you can leave (make another choice) >> liberty in action again.

Employment "at will" gives full power to employers. Sure, there are some special categories, but generally they can ensure they get compliance or just replace employees ... although that's actually not so easy if the employees are unionized but I digress ... I have yet to work in a company where a change in T&Cs was based on the consent of the employees. It was obviously legal, but never consensual, e.g. let's reduce the 401K match or remove it temporarily - something agreed when you joined, but then they decide to change it; or let's not pay the performance bonus to everyone this year .... Naturally I've taken stock of my liberty and made an appropriate choice in each instance. Funnily enough, for both examples, its probable that neither would have been possible in a unionized environment.

 

[dad4]

Unions are also bound by laws, just like employers. So if the former can be authoritarian (legally) then the latter can be also.

You brought up authoritarianism & politics (via the government linkage), so my political analogy is relevant.

I've pointed out that you have a choice and are at liberty to do what you want, join or not. You just don't like the choice and are hiding behind the liberty nonsense. Liberty doesn't mean you always get your way or to do what you want - it does mean you have a choice, so your liberty is just fine in this instance (unions in the workplace).

It’s a basic freedom of association argument. Do I have a right to choose not to associate with the union? Or can I be financially punished for choosing to exercise that right? Loss of an employment opportunity is, by most measures, a financial penalty.

Whether the union is popular is irrelevant. Even if 99% of workers agree, the majority does not have the right to financially punish the minority for choosing not to associate.

 

[Grace T.]

You have to accept the job to lose it - once you accept, you have agreed to comply. So you make your choice at the door, enter or not >> liberty in action. If you subsequently decide you don't like your choice, you can leave (make another choice) >> liberty in action again.

Employment "at will" gives full power to employers. Sure, there are some special categories, but generally they can ensure they get compliance or just replace employees ... although that's actually not so easy if the employees are unionized but I digress ... I have yet to work in a company where a change in T&Cs was based on the consent of the employees. It was obviously legal, but never consensual, e.g. let's reduce the 401K match or remove it temporarily - something agreed when you joined, but then they decide to change it; or let's not pay the performance bonus to everyone this year .... Naturally I've taken stock of my liberty and made an appropriate choice in each instance. Funnily enough, for both examples, its probable that neither would have been possible in a unionized environment.

Employment at will has been really whittled down even in the red states over the last two decades. It’s why medium and larger employees go out of the way to document when firing for cause.

I am constantly amazed by the lefts willingness to engage in authoritarian measures when it’s a cause they agree with

 

[whatithink]

It’s a basic freedom of association argument. Do I have a right to choose not to associate with the union? Or can I be financially punished for choosing to exercise that right? Loss of an employment opportunity is, by most measures, a financial penalty.

Whether the union is popular is irrelevant. Even if 99% of workers agree, the majority does not have the right to financially punish the minority for choosing not to associate.

If joining a union is a condition of employment (which started this), and if its a condition then it must be legal, then the freedom of association argument is moot.

 

[whatithink]

Employment at will has been really whittled down even in the red states over the last two decades. It’s why medium and larger employees go out of the way to document when firing for cause.

I am constantly amazed by the lefts willingness to engage in authoritarian measures when it’s a cause they agree with

Employment at will allows you to terminate for no cause.

I am constantly amazed by the left or rights willingness to engage in authoritarian measures when it’s a cause they agree with.

Authoritarianism never ends well, history is red with the blood of victims of both the left & rights excesses as a result.

 

[Grace T.]

Employment at will allows you to terminate for no cause.

I am constantly amazed by the left or rights willingness to engage in authoritarian measures when it’s a cause they agree with.

Authoritarianism never ends well, history is red with the blood of victims of both the left & rights excesses as a result.

As I said employment at will has been whittled away and invite a lawsuit (almost everyone now days is a protected class). It’s why employers go out of their way to document.

the difference with right/left authoritarianism is that the Left is constantly telling us they are the good ones, particularly when it comes to caring about workers. The dirty secret is you don’t trust joe worker to make up his own mind about whether to bargain collectively or not because of the “greater good”

 

[dad4]

If joining a union is a condition of employment (which started this), and if its a condition then it must be legal, then the freedom of association argument is moot.

Your argument is that anything which legal, by definition, cannot violate individual rights?

That is preposterous. There are plenty of things which violated individual rights despite being upheld as legal.

 

[whatithink]

the difference with right/left authoritarianism is that the Left is constantly telling us they are the good ones, particularly when it comes to caring about workers. The dirty secret is you don’t trust joe worker to make up his own mind about whether to bargain collectively or not because of the “greater good”

lol, both the left & right tell you that they are the good ones and looking out for you, they just spin it differently.

 

[whatithink]

Your argument is that anything which legal, by definition, cannot violate individual rights?

That is preposterous. There are plenty of things which violated individual rights despite being upheld as legal.

No, my argument is that when you accept a job you agree to the T&Cs. If that includes union membership then you agree to that, along with whatever else is in the T&Cs. If you don't want to accept the T&Cs then you can decline. You can negotiate T&Cs when you get a job, and some do move, e.g. you might get more PTO, but others don't move. At the end of the day you get to choose.

 

[Grace T.]

lol, both the left & right tell you that they are the good ones and looking out for you, they just spin it differently.

Again, when it comes to workers, the left is supposed to be the "good guys".

No, my argument is that when you accept a job you agree to the T&Cs. If that includes union membership then you agree to that, along with whatever else is in the T&Cs. If you don't want to accept the T&Cs then you can decline. You can negotiate T&Cs when you get a job, and some do move, e.g. you might get more PTO, but others don't move. At the end of the day you get to choose.

If it's a closed shop, you can't negotiate that T&C, even if the employer is amenable. That's like Polly demanding that if she works there, Molly can't be given more PTO. Polly can ask for MFN (if anyone gets more PTO, I get it too), though even the MFN rules are getting complicated now. Actions such as these run a foul of various legal rules such as interference with contractual expectancy and antitrust that unions have exemptions from.

And particularly if you already work there, you don't get a choice....lose the election, lose your job......if an employer took that position with an action you didn't like (vote for Trump or lose your job) you'd be screaming the red revolution and workers rights.

It's why there are two ways to skin this cat: Right to work...you can't be forced to join a union (particularly for a public employer union) and the trade off I'd be in favor of is make it easier to certify the union (if Fred and John want to form a union in the mail room, more power to them....if they negotiate a better deal more people will want to join the union). The other way is to make it democratic year over year....prior to concluding a new deal every year, have people vote to see if they want to keep the union. My preference if the former, rather than the latter because the latter is just so much more complicated and subject to employer shenanigans.