Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Faces Labor Board Complaint Alleging Interference With Unionization (arstechnica.com)
According to Ars Technica, a federal labor board on Thursday "filed a complaint against Tesla, alleging that the electric vehicle company had discouraged workers from distributing pro-union information, stopped them from talking about employee safety to the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, and in one case, prevented an employee from taking a picture of the Confidentiality Agreement they had to sign." From the report: The Oakland, California-based regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) consolidated the complaints of three former Tesla employees, Michael Sanchez, Jonathan Galescu, and Richard Ortiz, as well as complaints made by UAW. The complaint alleges that on numerous occasions between February 2017 and May 2017, security guards and human resources agents working on behalf of Tesla told employees that they had to leave the Fremont, California, factory premises because they were distributing pro-union leaflets. In addition, one employee says that over the course of two meetings, a Human Resources Business Partner and an Environmental Health Safety and Sustainability Specialist "interrogated the employee about the employee's Union and/or protected, concerted activities," as well as the pro-union activities of other employees. In March, the complaint claims, a supervisor told his employees during a pre-shift meeting that they could not distribute any stickers or pamphlets that hadn't been approved by Tesla first, or they would be fired. In another incident, a Human Resources Business Partner allegedly "attempted to prohibit an employee from discussing safety concerns with other employees and/or with the Union."
Musk has stated his support for universal basic income, to protect workers who would lose their jobs. It's easy to say that when it comes out of everyone's tax bills. Hiwever, when his workers want to form unions to protect themselves, his company is actively working to prevent them from exercising collective bargaining rights. What a hypocrite.
elon sometimes reminds me of bender, especially when he says "kill all humans"
Clean American coal is the future for American transportation and American jobs. Musk needs to wake up and smell the coal, and start working on a coal fired vehicle, perhaps coal fired 18 wheelers.
Elon reminds me of PayPal, which I personally have never had any negative business experience with.
To be one of the dot.bomb moguls who survived the explosion.....
No matter what industry it is, the bourgeois always want to curb worker’s protections and rights.
Without them we could enjoy the same unparalleled working conditions as Bangladeshi factory workers.
A long time ago, I worked in a retail store. WE had some version of the AFL-CIO representing usin our $2.15/hour jobs. I would see the union manager come around in his $1000 suits (a lot at the time). He didn't actually seem to be doing good for the employees, but it looked like he sure was doing good for himself.
It didn't take long before I was required to join. I called up my boss and refused to join the union. He made me the department maanger instead.
I can't say I ever missed having that union.
Bruce Perens.
The UAW is basically acting like a mafia organization now. They do not want Tesla to succeed, because Elon Musk's eventual vision is to drastically reduce human presence on the manufacturing floor through unprecedented production automation. Right now, GM uses robots for frame assembly, but the assembly of the rest of the car is primarily done by humans. Tesla currently occupies the NUMMI plant, formerly a venture of GM and Toyota opened in 1984. It was shut down, in large part because it was unprofitable due the presence of the UAW. The United Autoworkers union is a rent seeking parasitic organization that neither acts in the interests of its workers, nor largely for the companies its workers are employed in (except in this case indirectly in that getting rid of Tesla would be in the interests of GM and Ford).
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
All Tesla has to do is demonstrate to their workers that they already are getting working conditions that meet or exceed that of other unionized shops. Once they do so in an honest and forthright fashion, the union problem goes away because why would anyone want it?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Anecdotes and confirmation bias in an anti-union post, how original. But you don't see people questioning the very concept of banking because of Well's Fargo fraudulently signing people up for accounts they didn't ask for.
This "unions only protect the lazy" bullshit is dependent on the notion that not only are you going to be happy doing your own work, but your work plus Bob's down the hall whenever he feels like slacking off. No human is built that way - unless you're in an abusive Biff Tannen/George McFly situation, in which case George is going to be doing Bill's work even at an anti-union shop. And it's not like all of you Calvinist shitweasels haven't worked with any number of slackers at union-free companies who got away with all kinds of shenanigans because they were the boss's buddy.
Dumb.
Fuck.
Er.
Eee.
If you old enough to remember the 1970's in Britain (I was at primary school) you'll remember the mess the UK was un due to Unions flexing muscle.
It was like a 3rd world country. The worst year was the infamous "winter of discontent".
I was off school either because the teachers were striking, the miners were striking (no coal, no heating, freezing school) or the school janitor was striking.
The rubbish (trash) was piling up on the streets as the refuse collectors were striking.
I would sit at home with my parents in the dark with a gas lamp because the power station had gone out on strike.
I have no love for Thatcher, her politics, policies or legacy. This union driven madness was really what brought her to power and she crushed them without mercy.
It was effectively the end of socialist Britain, the cold war had made communism a dirty world and socialism was getting a bad name thanks to the power drunk unions.
The pendulum has swung a bit too far right since then (NHS dismantlement) and, I personally, blame the unions for it.
They abused their power and we all paid for it.
Reading between the lines on this Tesla spat with unions makes me think it's a grab for power.
We're not hearing any stories of awful working conditions. Oppressed, underpaid workers or anything that would make us think 'they need help, they need a union".
I'd like to think there was protection and worker representation in place but I also don't want to see Tesla hindered in their championing of a clean automotive future due to aa union's (unnecessary) interference.
Musk wants his workers to have money, not lecherous outsiders.
Be very careful ascribing motivations to others. You should make absolute certain that Musks motives are what you think they are, and that you haven't simply superimposed the motives you want Musk to have.
Everyone wants a hero. They love a good Robinhood story; so much so that they will imagine it even if it doesn't actually exist. That is why Donald Trump is the president of the united states.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
And what do the union representatives want?
I can't say it any better than this!
If unions used to be good, they no longer are.
Why?
When their donations go to a single political party in mass and ignore what the members want, and that party votes in to make union membership mandatory, its pretty much pure corruption start to finish. Which is what we have now.
No, we don't, actually. Rather the opposite.
Getting on to government employee unions, why would they even need to exist? Except for the corruption I pointed out?
So government employees can't have their own interests which they want to see represented? Why?
If the government can't treat employees good, which the unions are there to make sure, then the entire country is pretty much screwed.
Yes, without unions, the entire country can get screwed, as can the employees. This is why they do have unions, thanks for noticing.
Its a bit of a conflict of interest for a political party to help a union that is going to donate to that party, all using tax payer money.
Nope. Once it is in the employee's hands, it is NOT tax-payer money. Sorry.
With government unions, the DNC takes the money and the tax payers get screwed.
How so? Be specific.
Oh, add in that unions are allowed to put on political ads, but the DNC thinks others shouldn't be allowed to and you have pretty much corrupted free speech with unions.
Well, this example is not true, actually.
You want people to support unions? Take the political arm out of them and you will get 90%+ of the people supporting unions. You keep it BLATENTLY corrupt, and you get the support you currently see.
Nope. What will happen if Unions can't protect their interests politically, will be that they get screwed, and 90% of the people will be impacted by it, and you'll ignore the corruption.
I understand, you being a GOP supporter, don't have a problem with corruption or abuse of power as long as it helps "your team", but the rest of us are sick of it and are doing something about it.
FTFY, HTH.
That's what all that Thatcherite apologia translates to. You were the coddled child of bourgeois shitbags who wanted that whole workers-share-in-the-benefits-of-the-economy thing to be a passing phase in the post WWII era.
Trump is president because Hillary is pure distilled evil and even other Democrats could plainly see that, those they can see little else of truth theses days.
Nope. Trump is president because the partisan nature of US electoral politics are deeply ingrained, and the Electoral College lets any number of abuses happen, with no real recourse to the public.
Also I do no think the USA is ready for a non-human president quite yet.
Then why so many votes for Kodoss?
I myself am an independent, standing outside with a vastly clearer view than either Democrats or Republicans seem to have.
Nope, you are deeply confused, myopic, and self-deluded, not only that, you lie about your position. For mysterious reasons.
The way you put "everyone wants a hero" could just as easily describe why we had Obama for eight years...
Nope, that was the result of George W. Bush and then Mitt Romney. Even despite the most unpopular law since bread regulation, he got re-elected since its main proponent ran against him. And even Bob Dole couldn't save McCain.
Public sector unions are extremely dangerous, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they represent labor.
The problem is the circle is closed. The people in government who are negotiating with the union are playing with other people's money. So they are less inclined to be as responsible with the money. And the union is able to take the money they get from their members and distribute it to politicians who support their position in union negotiations.
So the politician who is working on a new union contract for, say, the teacher's union can increase the money going to the teacher's union. And the Teachers union can take some of that money and funnel it back to the politician. And the teachers union can campaign for and push their members to vote for that politician.
So the loop is closed. Politician benefits from Union in votes and cash. Union benefits from politician in additional members and cash.
Only the unwashed masses can stand in the way, and they are being cut out of the equation more and more each day.
None of that means that individuals shouldn't have the freedom to bargain with their employer. And they should also have the right via their freedom of association to group together in any way they wish.
But public sector unions are inherently dangerous to the republic because the interests of the parties involved are very much in agreement, but their interests are very much not aligned with the interests of the tax payer. It is inherent in the system. I don't know if there is a good solution to that problem.
Your post could have been put more succinctly if you had just said "You side is all gay and faggy, but my side is all sweetness and puppies".
They hate tesla but they hate unions. So do they attack tesla, as a leftie commie eco terrorist company killing capitalism, for their act or approve of them suppressing those commie leftie commune trying to kill companies?
The left find it easier to complain about bad things done by "their side".
Since at that point you really do have easy choices to make, since your life doesn't depend on giving up and bending over. YOU are confused only because you think UBI is some commie leftie plot when it's the most rightwing freemarket capitalist plot possible. It makes jobs a free market. Or at least as free as it can be without unions big enough to carry equal weight.
...they will imagine it even if it doesn't actually exist. That is why Donald Trump is the president of the united states.
Are you really comparing Musk to Trump? In the end you have to pick someone as a shining beacon of humanity just to stay sane without becoming a nihilist. Which is arguably the only sane position... But still. There is a giant list of companies that need unionization. Tesla is very much somewhere on the bottom of that list.
Unionism is a subset of the right to free assembly and is one of the underlying principles of democracy. This is a spin off of free speech, when enough people feel the same way about some aspect of culture that it needs to be changed, that is how it is changed. That's the point of free speech.
It seems to me that many people are all for free speech until a group gathers to express it, then it becomes easy to marginalize them, as a group. Personally I go by the maxim that someone's free speech ends where mine begins because if you give someone enough rope they'll either hang themselves or you'll find some sort of understanding. If you try really hard you may even find some mutual respect.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Unionism is a subset of the right to free assembly and is one of the underlying principles of democracy. This is a spin off of free speech, when enough people feel the same way about some aspect of culture that it needs to be changed, that is how it is changed. That's the point of free speech.
I have no problems with unions anymore than I have problem with companies selling timeshares, in that while I disagree with what they do and believe that they misrepresent themselves to those who they claim to serve, I believe that individuals should have the right make the choice.
It seems to me that many people are all for free speech until a group gathers to express it, then it becomes easy to marginalize them, as a group. Personally I go by the maxim that someone's free speech ends where mine begins because if you give someone enough rope they'll either hang themselves or you'll find some sort of understanding. If you try really hard you may even find some mutual respect.
I agree with you here. Unions are free to speak as they like. However, the problems that I have with unions are: 1) they misrepresent themselves (claiming to care only about employee safety and other workplace-related matters, while in reality being primarily politically oriented and primarily active in that area); and, 2) forced membership (i.e., closed shops), where people are forced to pay union dues, including supporting the union's political activities with which they may disagree, in order to get the collective bargaining representation that unions claim is their primary member benefit.
Some unions do a really good job of ensuring that their members are skilled and properly qualified. I know some folks in construction (as in own a company), for example, who won't hire non-union people for certain skilled trades. Not because non-union people can't be good at those trades, but because he knows that for people to be in good standing with the local union in that trade they have to be good and reputable. The UAW, SIEU, and other big mostly-political unions don't offer that.
You see, if a company sold you a product and lied about it, the FTC would get involved. If an automaker sold you a car that was not fit for the marketplace, or if a device manufacturer sold you a phone that was prone to exploding, you have some recourse as a consumer. However, if you work somewhere where you are forced to join a union (because "we're here to help you with collective bargaining") and you find out that most of your dues goes to pay for large union boss salaries and political campaigns, then what recourse do you have? Right now, there is none.
I think that free speech is quite important and if I choose to get together with other like-minded individuals to speak with one voice, then that is great. If I were forced to join a group as a condition of employment and fund its speech with which I disagree, I would consider that to be a violation of my free speech. As long as the unions are cool with membership being optional, then everything is fine. However, they historically have not found that arrangement agreeable. They want to force everyone to be a member.
The problem is that framing. The frame used, is about how Unions flex their muscle to unfuck society. Because Society is segregated, other parts of society is so strong, they they eventually flex back and ruin the nation.
What is hard to find about Winter of Discomfort is the core issue: Inflation had eroded the value of wages, to the point if workers had the same wages as 4 years prior, they wages would be worth about 20% less. And the Government, in all its greed, tries to force a max 5% increase before wage negotiations will start. Had not they government tried to force a 5% increase cap, nothing would have happened.
Period itself wasn't all that bad, as the British army was used extensively to avoid a system collapse.
However, what followed was a tree way media war between the Political Opposition, The Private Enterprises, and the Unions. The fallout from Thatcher winning did segregate the British society further, even if it did finally also end some of the worst WW2 tremors Britain had been suffering from participating in WW2.
Public sector unions are extremely dangerous, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they represent labor. The problem is the circle is closed.
All power is extremely dangerous, and it has nothing to do with any closed circles. That is the price, of course, of being empowered and free, but also having those equipped with the power of coercion.
The people in government who are negotiating with the union are playing with other people's money. So they are less inclined to be as responsible with the money.
Rather the opposite, it is not their money, so they are forced to be more responsible and accountable with it.
Do you not have any experience with fiscal reporting in government? It could even be said to be a hindrance, an impediment.
And the union is able to take the money they get from their members and distribute it to politicians who support their position in union negotiations.
You expect them not to support their own position then?
So the politician who is working on a new union contract for, say, the teacher's union can increase the money going to the teacher's union. And the Teachers union can take some of that money and funnel it back to the politician. And the teachers union can campaign for and push their members to vote for that politician.
So the loop is closed.
Funny how you leave out an important part of the discussion.
Politician benefits from Union in votes and cash. Union benefits from politician in additional members and cash.
Only the unwashed masses can stand in the way, and they are being cut out of the equation more and more each day.
Yes, but not by the unions or their supported politicians, rather, those masses have been cut out by the elites, who receive benefits from politicians in power, and use it to enrich themselves, and foster their own politicians who support them. You can see who is interested in cutting out the role of the public, diminishing their effectiveness and influence, and it isn't the unions.
None of that means that individuals shouldn't have the freedom to bargain with their employer. And they should also have the right via their freedom of association to group together in any way they wish.
Oh good for you, claiming this, but do you mean it?
But public sector unions are inherently dangerous to the republic because the interests of the parties involved are very much in agreement, but their interests are very much not aligned with the interests of the tax payer. It is inherent in the system. I don't know if there is a good solution to that problem.
Public sector unions are no more inherently dangerous than any other interested party involving themselves with the government, all power is dangerous, and capable of misuse and abuse. That is why the anarchists argue for the disestablishment of such power and authority, whether or not you agree with their solution in any way, it does exist.
I could respect somebody on that end of principle, but you seem to be lacking in a genuine appreciation of the actual problems that are hindering the people today. It isn't the unions, whose influence is ever-waning, not by a long-shot, that we need to worry ourselves over. The pernicious influence is elsewhere, yet you are copiously silent on it.
Oh the irony, a RWNJ trying to cope with the choice either supporting a union, or Musk.
Aha, the good old but Hilary, is there anything it cant do?
There is no point using logic with Superkunt.
I have no problems with unions anymore than I have problem with companies selling timeshares, in that while I disagree with what they do and believe that they misrepresent themselves to those who they claim to serve, I believe that individuals should have the right make the choice.
Every individual believes they should have the right to choose. The issue at stake is the right to free assembly which is at least as fundamental as the right to free speech. When you make that kind of generalization it attacks the right to free assembly in an unconscious way.
However, the problems that I have with unions are: 1) they misrepresent themselves and, 2) forced membership
1) They all do that? Really, 100% of them misrepresent themselves. Say a specific union has corrupt practices, sure, I can accept that. Lots of groups misrepresent themselves, unions do too. That's just the world and we have to try to figure out who is lying to us
2) There are countries with participatory democracies where you have to vote. If there is legal lobbying and representation that may be reasonable in some cases. Like if you do a job that's mundane or has high risk of death it might be appropriate and I wouldn't want to make that sort of generalization. I'm not saying you're wrong either, there probably are instances where it is inappropriate.
What I'm saying is I err on the side that gives the individual the most freedom, for all of the warts that come with it.
However, if you work somewhere where you are forced to join a union (because "we're here to help you with collective bargaining") and you find out that most of your dues goes to pay for large union boss salaries and political campaigns, then what recourse do you have? Right now, there is none.
Yes there is, you free assemble with people who share your beliefs and form your own union. That's why free speech is important and people should be allowed to speak their mind. They're either an idiot that should be ignored or they have a point and other people feel the same way.
This is what I've never gotten about the land of the free, people complaining that people are free to assemble in a democracy and make changes to improve their culture by expressing their truth. That's what freedom IS, that deserves celebration, look at those guys standing up for themselves, good on them.
Maybe unions have to be that way in America because business is ferocious, I don't know, maybe they are a product of the industries they operate in.
If I were forced to join a group as a condition of employment and fund its speech with which I disagree, I would consider that to be a violation of my free speech. As long as the unions are cool with membership being optional, then everything is fine.
I think this comes down to Personal Responsibility, which seems to be an unpopular concept, insofar as if you are going to work in a particular field of work then you had better know that in advance and figure out if you are comfortable with being in that union, otherwise what are you doing there? If you're so passionate about a certain field of work then you can form your own union that is optional and exercise your right to free assembly.
People who have mastered the cultural idioms of their field have earned the right to change it. What about the people who are fine with mandatory unionism, you're impinging on their free speech AND their right to free assembly. Who has the right to say to a particular group you can't assemble yourselves that way, maybe they have a perfectly good reason to do so. Your free speech ends where theirs begins and if they aren't comfortable with it then they have the right to assemble a new organization and change that cultural aspect of society which lives or dies on its merits.
That's the underutilized point of being in a democracy, the freedom to evolve it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Tesla is losing talent left and right. They see the writing on the wall, and it won't be long that even the loyalist investors will begin to pull back. Musk is a snake oil salesman who has simply BS his way into trying to make Tesla something its not. For awhile everyone was drinking the koolaid but not anymore.
I think this comes down to Personal Responsibility, which seems to be an unpopular concept, insofar as if you are going to work in a particular field of work then you had better know that in advance and figure out if you are comfortable with being in that union, otherwise what are you doing there? If you're so passionate about a certain field of work then you can form your own union that is optional and exercise your right to free assembly.
I am a huge fan of personal responsibility. In fact, the tendency of unions to breed mediocrity at the cost of personal responsibility is partly why I think that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. In any event, I can understand where you are coming from. However, if a union establishes a closed shop somewhere (i.e., you must join that particular union as a condition of employment), then they are infringing upon the right of free assembly of any worker who does not wish to join the union. Saying "that's just how it is" does not make it right.
Imagine that if everyone in a particular local government organization were member of a particular church. Then imagine that the church declared that anyone who goes to work for that agency must also join that church. That sort of thing wouldn't fly. I don't think it should be a problem for any organization to try to recruit members, but why do unions get a special pass on forcing people to join in some cases?
In fact, the tendency of unions to breed mediocrity at the cost of personal responsibility is partly why I think that they are part of the problem
That is the sad irony. Some people really are mediocre. We're not all equal and we never will be, worse some people actually choose to be mediocre. If they have a mediocre job and a mediocre union they are still free to step out of that. They either take on the personal responsibility willingly or they remain mediocre. Nothing is going to stop a mediocre person who thinks life is meaningless from being the least they can be. Having a union that they *have* to join is probably more than they deserve formed by people only slightly less mediocre that they are.
However, if a union establishes a closed shop somewhere (i.e., you must join that particular union as a condition of employment), then they are infringing upon the right of free assembly of any worker who does not wish to join the union. Saying "that's just how it is" does not make it right.
You could also say that this free assembly of people have certain professional and cultural standards that they wish to maintain and what right has any third party earned to go in and mess with their culture or standards.
Dictating to a group how they should express their right to free assembly is not democracy, it's dictatorship. That's not right either. That's what was done in the USSR just before they butchered a bunch of unionists who realized that was the only way to challenge state power. Too tired to remember where I read that.
Free assembly as a right to unionize in the US cost a lot of people their lives and mob tactics were used several time to try to stop it happening. We should probably keep in mind that unionism has to confront corporate *and* state power at the same time so it is going to need to have some teeth.
why do unions get a special pass on forcing people to join in some cases?
I don't know. Maybe the industry sector is so ferocious. Maybe they need to ensure that people all have the same level of safety and first aid training so a colleague doesn't die. Maybe because their members are so apathetic they need to make people pay attention. Not all unions have mandatory membership so obviously it's not a widespread thing, just a thing that happens sometimes.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I am glad that we agree here. While unions should be free to organize and recruit members, people should likewise be free to ignore them. Again, like churches as I mentioned in my earlier reply (which I note you conveniently omitted). Unions should not be treated any differently than churches: if you want to join it is your business, but nobody should be able to force you to join.
He also assumed a return of only 5%
The average annualized return of the S&P 500 Index was 11.69% from 1973 - 2016. For the last ten years, it's been 11.4%.
With average returns, to amass $900,000 over 20 years, requires an investment of $12,015 / year. So roughly 10% of your income for most of us. HOWEVER, most of us probably work for employers who will match at least 3%, so we only need to invest about 7% ourselves.
If you make only $60,000 a year, and never get a raise, to be a millionaire in 20 years you need to invest about 15%-20% of your income.
But it gets even easier when you consider housing. On average, rent costs more than a mortgage payment (necessarily, so that landlords are compensated for risk by making a profit). In other words, it would cost you LESS to buy your house than to rent it. Then in the end you have a house you can sell for $300,000 or however much, without ever paying any more than you would have already been paying to rent.
Once you include a portion of your mortgage as an investment, you need to put aside only 7%-10% of your income into index mutual funds in order to become a millionaire.
Cool car.
Whatever.
Cool car.
aaaaaaa
Are you really comparing Musk to Trump? In the end you have to pick someone as a shining beacon of humanity just to stay sane without becoming a nihilist. Which is arguably the only sane position...
There are a very large number of people in this country who would make a strenuous argument that Trump is the savior of America. The rest of us look at them and shake our heads in wonder, but the simple truth is that their news source has been corrupted to the point that they have been lead to a completely messed up conclusion. Their conclusion is not really wrong based on the information they have been given.
The entire point is: Are you so sure of your sources of information? I am sure as hell not.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I am glad that we agree here.
If people decide to assemble then the people who participate in their group have to abide by their rules. So if a union wants to have mandatory membership in that sector, that is that groups right which has no impact on freedom of choice of an individual to participate in that occupation.
While unions should be free to organize and recruit members, people should likewise be free to ignore them.
People voluntarily make them selves members of certain communities that have a set of standards. Those communities expect certain standards and some of them are mandatory if you expect to participate in that occupation. Mandatory union membership is a way of that community saying there is something important about their culture they need preserved or functioning, a certain level of discipline is required of you if you undertake this occupation.
What you're saying is like military recruits being free to ignore military culture. Soldiers could just choose to leave whenever they want. If they didn't want to be deployed somewhere - they don't have to. If they don't like an order, there is no need to obey it. If there was a battle that they didn't want to participate in, they don't have to. An aspect of training they don't really want to do, it won't be required of them. A mission they didn't want to do, they can wait it out. An individual that chooses to become a soldier is expected to participate, it's mandatory.
So, no I don't agree that people should be free to ignore the community standards of a certian occupation, if you want to work there then you damn well discipline yourself to those standards. That is what that culture, freely assembled, expects. People who don't agree with that are free to assemble their own group and create their own culture. No one has any business disrupting someone's culture in the community if mandatory membership is what they have deemed is required. It's not as if the individual has to be there, they can work somewhere else if they aren't disciplined enough.
You're saying none of the unions are sincere which seems unlikely, what about the ones that are sincere? Are you going to step in and dictate to them how they should operate their culture? If you don't agree with the rules of their culture then leave. If you are passionate about that culture and think it needs to change then you first have to discipline yourself to that culture, learn it, then master it, then you have earned the right to change it.
Again, like churches as I mentioned in my earlier reply (which I note you conveniently omitted).
I didn't think it was a realistic scenario comparable to real life. Unions are political organizations, by design, that is what they do. Churches are specifically *not* political organizations, that is the boundary between church and state.
Unions should not be treated any differently than churches: if you want to join it is your business, but nobody should be able to force you to join.
I don't agree with that. Unions are completely different from Churches and they should be treated completely differently from churches. It is a function of unions to operate politically because they have the role of updating community standards. They are legal entities with a specifically political function in the community. For them to function some of them enforce mandatory membership.
I certainly wouldn't want a Doctor practicing medicine without being a member of the relevant medical association, that is mandatory membership in that organization. Same with Paramedics, Policemen, Firefighters all expect colleagues to have certain standards because otherwise it
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Other parties are free to court their votes. Isn't democracy neat that way?
See again about democracy. Don't like your union leadership? Vote them out. Any of you geniuses realize that's far more say you have, as opposed to the company's CEO?
Because many municipalities are happy to pay workers poverty-level wages? How much rarified air is in your bubble for you to even ask such a question?
An unilaterally disarm against business interests who are constantly political? Who lobby for shit like overriding municipal minimum wage statues with state laws?