Hüsker Dü
DA
There are other opportunities in those fields for those who don’t want to contribute to the common cause. Majority rules (not the whiniest and loudest), that’s democracy. Are you ok with Citizens United?
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Let's run through my Orwellian translator:
I believe an individual has the right to make their own decisions, including joining forces to advance their interests, but only if it doesn't run afoul of everyone else's preferences, in which case an individual doesn't have a right to make their own decisions. The majority preferences must also be in line with my preferences, otherwise I reserve the right to condemn it as evil and exercise my veto. If you don't contribute to my approved common cause as has been vetted and approved by me, and therefore which is no doubt virtuous, we reserve the right to deprive you of your ability to work, at least to the extent it runs against the collective good, again as defined by me.
This is why there's always been the concern about the tyranny of the majority. It's as old as the French revolution with the mob cutting everyone's heads off. Democracy is great....it's the best system in comparison to all the others....but even we don't have a pure democracy (we have a republic). But I believe in liberty above all else. Society, just because it decided by majority vote, doesn't get to silence you, deprive you of your life, or deprive you of your basic rights.
Hüsker Dü
DA
If you want join, participate, you must abide by the rules. We all don’t have to bend over backwards to facilitate your particular fancies.
Disagree since the decision to "join" isn't made by you but the employer, ESPECIALLY if said employer is a government entity.
Its unfortunate but some people's allegiance to unions is stronger than their allegiance to children. Sad actually. Talk about self-centered adults.
Does your Orwellian translator output include the part about the French Revolution?
Who is Henry Olsen?
Birth During the Pandemic May Affect Neurodevelopment
In utero COVID exposure does not appear to be a factor
www.medpagetoday.com
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.
whatithink
GOLD
You're not making sense to me. Every job has T&Cs. You agree to those when you accept the job. You have complete liberty to accept the job or not. If one mandates union membership, then you are at liberty to decline the job offer as you disagree with that. New employees don't get to dictate their own T&Cs, no company could tolerate that; it would be unworkable.
I've never been in a union or a unionized workplace, so I've no idea how I'd feel about it, but if it ever comes up, I'd have a look. If it worked for me, great, if not, then I'd decline (assuming I wasn't desperate for the job for some reason).
1. The employer in this case isn't making up the T&C. It's the collective of the employees (the union).
2. There are restrictions also on what an employer can tell you to do under law (minimum wages, work hour, political activities). Beyond that it's a bargain between the employer and an individual (or a group of individuals acting collectively). It's a contract and one of the principles of contracts is you can't bind people who do not consent to the contract.
3. That collective of employees is changing day in and day out. People leave and come back so it's not the same group of 5, 10 or even 100 people who have opted to act collectively. Any one of them might any day decide they don't want to act collectively and/or leave for someone that doesn't. It's the ship problem: if you replace parts of a ship, when does it cease being the same ship. At a minimum, if you wanted to force some people to consent, you'd have to exempt people already working there when the union is formed, and periodically recertify the union as people change their mind and/or leave and get hired (perhaps yearly) if we really care about democratic principles
4. For a public employer these concerns double down: because the government is subject to capture by special interests who are especially motivated in the particular issue which the general public may be apathetic to.
whatithink
GOLD
1. The T&Cs are agreed between the employer & union, i.e. they both have to agree.
2. You are bound if you accept the offer, and are then bound by that acceptance. You can decline.
3. The collective of employees can decide to change the T&Cs, if the employer agrees, as part of a negotiation. You're not forcing anyone to consent, as everyone consented by accepting the job offer. If subsequently someone want to change that, they have to work within the parameters they agreed to both within the union and then by getting the employer to agree.
You never lose your "liberty" from the time you accept or if you ever decide to leave as its not for you or because the majority is fine with the status quo (and you are not).
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.
"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.