"If the Union did let them it would destory the value/power of the Union"
I guess this would mean that it would destroy the ACLU if people were not forced to join it? Of course it does not. The same applies to unions. Also, if the union's power comes only from having people in the union who do not want to be in it, this is ill-gained power. If the union only has value if people are forced to follow it, does it really have any value?
"States that have laws preventing Unions from "forcing" people into Unions have really Weak Unions and hence no benefits from Unions"
The unions are weaker since they aren't stealing money from people being forced to join them. As for "hence no benefits", that is the union doing a lousy job at serving workers.
"People always have the choice to not work the position"
If they are qualified, why keep them from this job? Isn't it kind of screwed up to keep people from jobs they are good at because of some political dispute that has nothing to do with how they can do the job?
"It is a vaild suggestion to prevent Unions from giving to politcal causes, but wouldn't this single out Unions from a lot of other groups"
The unions are unique in that most of the members are forced to join. This special situation warrants special circumstances so the unions become like legitimate organizations where no one is forced to give to political causes. Again, if the particular union has voluntary membership (and many many do!), it should be able to do whatever it wants to with political funds. Then there is no question of abuse of rights.
"Besides, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of a causal relationship between unions and outsourcing. If you have some, I'd certainly be interested in reading it."
Consider car companies tending to close union plants, and tending to open new plants or move operations to countries or states where workers are not forced to join unions.
keep thinking of these too late. The difference is that I think worker rights are something to defend. There's not much worker rights involved in a situation of "join this non-job-related club or we will fire you". Why not let each worker decide?
The only good thing with the situation is that unions have managed to win the hearts of only 8% of the workers in the U.S. It is no surprise, with such "join or we will get you fired" bullying tactics. Perhaps if the unions trusted workers, and went out of their way to encourage individuals to want to belong, union membership might soar.
Because you refuse to join and give money to a political organization that has nothing to do with whether or not you can do your job? That makes as much sense as firing the secretary who won't sleep with her boss.
No, you do not have a choice. "Join this club or you are fired" is coercion, not choice.
Using your logic, we should make the United States an officially Christian nation. Don't like it? Go to Mexico. It's free choice, right?
Re:Larry Niven strikes again; Ringworld sunflowers
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Heh. heh. heh. Actually, Archimedes beat them both too it by a long time, as the other guy pointed out. I don't know about the Cockeyed guy. I did, however, find Nigerian penpals on his site.
"If the union didn't provide large amounts of money to political causes would unions be ok?"
I should mention that I don't consider such organizations to be legitimate if people are forced to join them. Let them play by the same rules as the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club....and those Southern Baptists.
Unlike closed-shop unions, these organizations are forced to be accountable to their members. If they are not, the members leave. The union gets members and money even if half the people don't like the union and what it is doing. Closed-shop unions have much less incentive to serve their members.
"They are in contract with the employer. Why would the Union let people work in positions under its contract without being paid for its services (or having them be apart of the Union)."
Why should the union let them? Because there are people who want to work at those positions. It seems like a bad contract if it prevents qualified workers from working jobs.
"If the union didn't provide large amounts of money to political causes would unions be ok? "
They'd be a lot better. My biggest peeve is the ones that force you to join and then force you to waste your wages on politics. If you got rid of the latter, forced membership would be a lot less unfair to the workers. A lot less.
"Businesses provide large amount of money to political causes all the time and you dont seem to mention that."
Why is it worth mentioning? It does not compare at all. The business people involve choose to give this money: it is their own money they are doing this with. I have no problem with anyone choosing to give to political (or other) causes. I also have no problem with unions spending political money as long as it the payments are not forced from workers.
Similarly, I have no problem with forced political payments if union membership is left to worker choice. The union can easily avoid the politics without losing their job by quitting the union.
"Why couldn't they? Or would you suggest also that American programmers are incapable of developing a cricket or rugby game if they've never played it before?"
I think we should get rid of all of the Lucasarts staff. They are so badly unqualified to design "Star Wars" games. There is not a single programmer among them who has actually piloted an X-Wing, or seen a Gungan in the flesh. Grossly unqualified, all of them.
Put em out on the streets. Let them go to the soup kitchen along with the Zelda designer laid off because he had never fired a real hookshot, and those worthless would-be Doom programmers who have no idea what it is like to fight for your life against a real Revenant.
"Oh, I hit a Ayn-Rand thumping libertarian. Never mind. When you'll grow up, you'll understand.
Nah. I was too smart to grow into Ayn Rand in the first place, so I never grew out of her. I've been
known to thump her and the Randists many a time, as well. Besides, it is not just the Randroids who know that Marxism has
nothing to do with real economics or the way the world works. You might try the 93% of us
smart enough to see past both Marx and Rand. This includes myths of "capitol" and
"squishing workers" (the doctrine of "class warfare", good for nothing except giving Stalin and Lenin excuses
to massacre people)
Besides, I am arguing for the rights of the workers here, not the corporations. Such
decisions as discussed here should not be taken from the proletariat.
Marxism, does, however, come across as worse than Randism. At worst, a Randist is selfish with their own stuff. The greed of Marxism knows no bounds: most of the worst genocidal dictators on history were Marxists. Myths of capital and class warfare have so little to do with the real world, that when you attempt to apply them, you end up with killing fields. This is not a defense of Randism. I am just saying that a selfish jerk is a little less obnoxious than an intolerant megalomaniac.
Again, what is so horrible
about letting the workers decide? If they end up divided, it is because different groups of workers have different interests and different goals. Recognize that diversity, and don't go down the fascist path of forcing them to submit against their interest "for their own good". I suspect that you have no problem at all forcing people to serve your cause even if it goes against their interest. It does not matter what they think: only the authorities are right. Is that it?
I respect each and every worker's decision whether or not to belong to such organizations. It is not up to the capitalist or the union boss.
"If they dont want the services they can find a job somewhere else"
That's fine. Why not let them work there and they can work out their benefits on their own? Without the union? I think it is silly to mandate union "benefits" to non-union members anyway.
"The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU doesn't bargain for you wage, benefits, work hours."
If you do not like the organization and what it does, it is exactly the same thing: forcing someone to join something that has nothing to do with actual job qualifications. The analogy is even more relevant considering that all of the organizations blow millions on politics. This includes the union. Your last line would better read: "The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU don't bargain for your wage, benefits, work hours. The union does. However, like the Baptists and ACLU, the union also spends a huge amount of money on political causes that you might not agree with."
Larry Niven strikes again; Ringworld sunflowers.
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Larry Niven invented the "flashmob" years ago. Now, it looks like someone has come up with something similar to his Ringworld "Sunflowers", which consisted of petal-ringed mirrors which could focus on prey and turn it into ash fertilizer.
"Unions are an entity that can abuse corporations. Corporations are an entity that can abuse employees. Turnabout is fair play. Free markets aren't total saints you know."
What about when both turn on the employees? Forced unionization (closed shop) abuses the employees (very roughly half) who are in the union but don't like what it is doing and are not represented by it. So now you have the unions beating up on employees too. Sometimes, the union literally beats up on workers (as in those who dare to cross picket lines to work for a living).
"It is not stolen money, they are paying for the services associated with the Union."
It is stolen money for those who do not want these services, or especially those who do not want the factory closings and layoffs that forced unionization encourages. Also, you are forgetting that much of this stolen money is spent on political candidates and causes that go against the interest of the workers.
"Is it fair for them to gain extra wages and benifits with out being in the Union."
"Fair" is a subjective concept. Besides, why can't the union contract limit these wages and benefits to those who are in the union? Nothing wrong with that.
"I agree there should be limitations on who is forced into the Union,"
Why force anyone at all into an organization that has nothing to do with your ability to do the job or not? It makes just as much sense to force workers to join the Southern Baptist Church or the ACLU.
"It is extremely progressive. This way, the companies cannot divide the workers to rule."
You are forgetting that it overrides the workers own desires and needs....and often runs against them. It is progressive in the way that fascism is progressive: not at all.
"so it's only fair that the workers be able to do the same.
Yet, if workers are being forced to do it, it is not something they are choosing to do. You are squishing between 30% and 50% of the workers along the way (those who do not like the union but were forced to join in order to work).
"Companies have no problem about uniting their capital in order to squish the workers"
That rings of invalid Marxian social science fiction, that has nothing to do with how the world works.
What is so horrible about letting the workers decide?
"I'd love to see EA outsource Madden football development to India. A country that doesn't even play American football."
It would be quite easy. They could study manuals, videotapes, and even consult with John Madden. Just because they do not do it does not mean they cannot make a game of it. If this were true, Nintendo would have never built their huge company starting with a game about an Italian plumber jumping over burning barrels. Or Atari: "How do you expect us to make an Asteroids game? I've never even SEEN one of the things!"
"Unions are interested in paying people a living wage"
That is a big part of the problem. The wage should be for the real value of the work. Not for some arbitrary amount that someone has defined as a "living wage" which has nothing to do with the value of the work. If the unions want to keep the company in business, they would not encourage wasting money on paying "living wages" for those jobs that are worth less than the arbitrary value.
Besides, it is not generally true that "Unions are interested in keeping the company in businesses just as much as the company". Union greed has brought many companies to ruin, or near ruin. This is the obvious result when labor costs spiral out of control and have nothing to do with value of the work being done.
This happens because unions are too powerful. Many of them, such as the AFL-CIO and UAW, operate with stolen money. Most members are forced to join. Workers are forced to join and pay against their will. If union membership was the choice of each worker, only then would unions be any sort of legitimate representative.
"Like everywhere in North America, you have to join the union whenever there is one"
That does not sound very progressive: being forced to join political organizations that have nothing to do with whether or not you can do the job. Anyway, much of the United States is "right to work" where you can work without joining. I do not know about Mexico and Central America (for the rest of North America).
"Unions are the antithesis of free markets, especially when they start doing things like using member money to influence Congress"
Provided that the union membership is entirely voluntary, what is wrong with this? It would seem to be part of the free market, not the antithesis. It is only when workers are forced to pay for this that the free market goes away. Sadly, this applies to the AFL-CIO, which does weild huge $$$ with Congress. Most of its members did not even choose to join it (they are forced). However, not every union has to rely on illegitimate coercion for membership.
"Yes to the first and no to the second.....
Not every Union is bad"
Well, you answered that membership IS voluntary, which makes the union a fine and legitimate organization "in my book"!
"Advancing a political cause, supporting a candidate or campaigning for any issues beyond what has an immediate impact on the working environment should be completely taboo"
I have no problem with this if the members want it: provided that membership is (as it is in this example) voluntary.
I don't know much about Quebec in this regard. Does the labor law force workers to join unions as a condition of employment? Or is this decision left to each individual worker?
"As in Wal*Mart has closed stores whose employees have voted to unionize"
Unless the state is "right to work" (which protects workers' rights regardless of whether they join political organizations), such a store is a lost cause. To keep it open, Wal-Mart would have to force the workers into the union whether it was in their interest or not. If I ran that company, I would not be proud to have such a store in the chain. Do you what states these stores were in?
"Thanks to bad labor law, the union vote at this store means that Wal-Mart workers here will all be forced to join a political organization against their will."
"Yeah, Wal*Mart workers are free to give money to unions. They just better not join them, or if they do, take part in any union activity."
How is this any worse than Costco firing workers for refusing to take part in any union activity? Thanks for the dead/locked Salon link, by the way.
Did this union have entirely voluntary membership? If not, did it force members to give to political causes and candidates? Only if the answer is yes to the first and no to the second can we talk about it being legitimate.
"that's why newbies should use a good desktop, like gnome or kde, where there's a little thing called a "menu"."
Often, these things are still easier in the GUI. Is "oowrite" always in that/usr/bin whatever folder mentioned in the parent? Then you can go to the CLI and start it in the time it takes you to fish around and search all over the screen for menus and icons that are might not even be in the same place from bootup to bootup, and will certainly never been in the same place from different machine to different machine.
"But my point was that most of the time, I run synaptic, install a package, then hit the gnome Applications menu and find it right away."
What if you have 60 or so applications? Or synaptic is in a sub menu? You'll have a lot of squinting and hunting to do. Chances are, the CLI user will have started synaptic and will be deep into use of it while you are still hunting for the name of it in the GUI. And when you install more apps, likely synaptic will move to another place in the menu list if it is alphabetized.
There is a lot of improvement to be made to the GUI. Nothing, not even Mac OS X has approached the ease of use of an ancient DOS menu utility I last saw 12 years ago. It came on right after bootup, and you pressed an alphabetic letter to start an app. Sure, the environment left something to be desired in other ways, but the ease of use in launching was unmatched, especially compared to cluttered and wildly inconsistent GUI desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the secretary is not forced to have sex with the boss.
"States that have laws preventing Unions from "forcing" people into Unions have really Weak Unions and hence no benefits from Unions"
The unions are weaker since they aren't stealing money from people being forced to join them. As for "hence no benefits", that is the union doing a lousy job at serving workers.
"People always have the choice to not work the position"
If they are qualified, why keep them from this job? Isn't it kind of screwed up to keep people from jobs they are good at because of some political dispute that has nothing to do with how they can do the job?
"It is a vaild suggestion to prevent Unions from giving to politcal causes, but wouldn't this single out Unions from a lot of other groups"
The unions are unique in that most of the members are forced to join. This special situation warrants special circumstances so the unions become like legitimate organizations where no one is forced to give to political causes. Again, if the particular union has voluntary membership (and many many do!), it should be able to do whatever it wants to with political funds. Then there is no question of abuse of rights.
Consider car companies tending to close union plants, and tending to open new plants or move operations to countries or states where workers are not forced to join unions.
keep thinking of these too late. The difference is that I think worker rights are something to defend. There's not much worker rights involved in a situation of "join this non-job-related club or we will fire you". Why not let each worker decide?
The only good thing with the situation is that unions have managed to win the hearts of only 8% of the workers in the U.S. It is no surprise, with such "join or we will get you fired" bullying tactics. Perhaps if the unions trusted workers, and went out of their way to encourage individuals to want to belong, union membership might soar.
That's #29, for those who are counting.
Because you refuse to join and give money to a political organization that has nothing to do with whether or not you can do your job? That makes as much sense as firing the secretary who won't sleep with her boss.
No, you do not have a choice. "Join this club or you are fired" is coercion, not choice.
Using your logic, we should make the United States an officially Christian nation. Don't like it? Go to Mexico. It's free choice, right?
Heh. heh. heh. Actually, Archimedes beat them both too it by a long time, as the other guy pointed out. I don't know about the Cockeyed guy. I did, however, find Nigerian penpals on his site.
I should mention that I don't consider such organizations to be legitimate if people are forced to join them. Let them play by the same rules as the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club....and those Southern Baptists.
Unlike closed-shop unions, these organizations are forced to be accountable to their members. If they are not, the members leave. The union gets members and money even if half the people don't like the union and what it is doing. Closed-shop unions have much less incentive to serve their members.
Why should the union let them? Because there are people who want to work at those positions. It seems like a bad contract if it prevents qualified workers from working jobs.
"If the union didn't provide large amounts of money to political causes would unions be ok? "
They'd be a lot better. My biggest peeve is the ones that force you to join and then force you to waste your wages on politics. If you got rid of the latter, forced membership would be a lot less unfair to the workers. A lot less.
"Businesses provide large amount of money to political causes all the time and you dont seem to mention that."
Why is it worth mentioning? It does not compare at all. The business people involve choose to give this money: it is their own money they are doing this with. I have no problem with anyone choosing to give to political (or other) causes. I also have no problem with unions spending political money as long as it the payments are not forced from workers.
Similarly, I have no problem with forced political payments if union membership is left to worker choice. The union can easily avoid the politics without losing their job by quitting the union.
I think we should get rid of all of the Lucasarts staff. They are so badly unqualified to design "Star Wars" games. There is not a single programmer among them who has actually piloted an X-Wing, or seen a Gungan in the flesh. Grossly unqualified, all of them.
Put em out on the streets. Let them go to the soup kitchen along with the Zelda designer laid off because he had never fired a real hookshot, and those worthless would-be Doom programmers who have no idea what it is like to fight for your life against a real Revenant.
Nah. I was too smart to grow into Ayn Rand in the first place, so I never grew out of her. I've been known to thump her and the Randists many a time, as well. Besides, it is not just the Randroids who know that Marxism has nothing to do with real economics or the way the world works. You might try the 93% of us smart enough to see past both Marx and Rand. This includes myths of "capitol" and "squishing workers" (the doctrine of "class warfare", good for nothing except giving Stalin and Lenin excuses to massacre people)
Besides, I am arguing for the rights of the workers here, not the corporations. Such decisions as discussed here should not be taken from the proletariat.
Marxism, does, however, come across as worse than Randism. At worst, a Randist is selfish with their own stuff. The greed of Marxism knows no bounds: most of the worst genocidal dictators on history were Marxists. Myths of capital and class warfare have so little to do with the real world, that when you attempt to apply them, you end up with killing fields. This is not a defense of Randism. I am just saying that a selfish jerk is a little less obnoxious than an intolerant megalomaniac.
Again, what is so horrible about letting the workers decide? If they end up divided, it is because different groups of workers have different interests and different goals. Recognize that diversity, and don't go down the fascist path of forcing them to submit against their interest "for their own good". I suspect that you have no problem at all forcing people to serve your cause even if it goes against their interest. It does not matter what they think: only the authorities are right. Is that it?
I respect each and every worker's decision whether or not to belong to such organizations. It is not up to the capitalist or the union boss.
That's fine. Why not let them work there and they can work out their benefits on their own? Without the union? I think it is silly to mandate union "benefits" to non-union members anyway.
"The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU doesn't bargain for you wage, benefits, work hours."
If you do not like the organization and what it does, it is exactly the same thing: forcing someone to join something that has nothing to do with actual job qualifications. The analogy is even more relevant considering that all of the organizations blow millions on politics. This includes the union. Your last line would better read: "The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU don't bargain for your wage, benefits, work hours. The union does. However, like the Baptists and ACLU, the union also spends a huge amount of money on political causes that you might not agree with."
Larry Niven invented the "flashmob" years ago. Now, it looks like someone has come up with something similar to his Ringworld "Sunflowers", which consisted of petal-ringed mirrors which could focus on prey and turn it into ash fertilizer.
Yeah, but can you mount it on the head of a friggin shark?
What about when both turn on the employees? Forced unionization (closed shop) abuses the employees (very roughly half) who are in the union but don't like what it is doing and are not represented by it. So now you have the unions beating up on employees too. Sometimes, the union literally beats up on workers (as in those who dare to cross picket lines to work for a living).
It is stolen money for those who do not want these services, or especially those who do not want the factory closings and layoffs that forced unionization encourages. Also, you are forgetting that much of this stolen money is spent on political candidates and causes that go against the interest of the workers.
"Is it fair for them to gain extra wages and benifits with out being in the Union."
"Fair" is a subjective concept. Besides, why can't the union contract limit these wages and benefits to those who are in the union? Nothing wrong with that.
"I agree there should be limitations on who is forced into the Union,"
Why force anyone at all into an organization that has nothing to do with your ability to do the job or not? It makes just as much sense to force workers to join the Southern Baptist Church or the ACLU.
You are forgetting that it overrides the workers own desires and needs....and often runs against them. It is progressive in the way that fascism is progressive: not at all.
"so it's only fair that the workers be able to do the same.
Yet, if workers are being forced to do it, it is not something they are choosing to do. You are squishing between 30% and 50% of the workers along the way (those who do not like the union but were forced to join in order to work).
"Companies have no problem about uniting their capital in order to squish the workers"
That rings of invalid Marxian social science fiction, that has nothing to do with how the world works.
What is so horrible about letting the workers decide?
It would be quite easy. They could study manuals, videotapes, and even consult with John Madden. Just because they do not do it does not mean they cannot make a game of it. If this were true, Nintendo would have never built their huge company starting with a game about an Italian plumber jumping over burning barrels. Or Atari: "How do you expect us to make an Asteroids game? I've never even SEEN one of the things!"
That is a big part of the problem. The wage should be for the real value of the work. Not for some arbitrary amount that someone has defined as a "living wage" which has nothing to do with the value of the work. If the unions want to keep the company in business, they would not encourage wasting money on paying "living wages" for those jobs that are worth less than the arbitrary value.
Besides, it is not generally true that "Unions are interested in keeping the company in businesses just as much as the company". Union greed has brought many companies to ruin, or near ruin. This is the obvious result when labor costs spiral out of control and have nothing to do with value of the work being done.
This happens because unions are too powerful. Many of them, such as the AFL-CIO and UAW, operate with stolen money. Most members are forced to join. Workers are forced to join and pay against their will. If union membership was the choice of each worker, only then would unions be any sort of legitimate representative.
That does not sound very progressive: being forced to join political organizations that have nothing to do with whether or not you can do the job. Anyway, much of the United States is "right to work" where you can work without joining. I do not know about Mexico and Central America (for the rest of North America).
Provided that the union membership is entirely voluntary, what is wrong with this? It would seem to be part of the free market, not the antithesis. It is only when workers are forced to pay for this that the free market goes away. Sadly, this applies to the AFL-CIO, which does weild huge $$$ with Congress. Most of its members did not even choose to join it (they are forced). However, not every union has to rely on illegitimate coercion for membership.
Well, you answered that membership IS voluntary, which makes the union a fine and legitimate organization "in my book"!
"Advancing a political cause, supporting a candidate or campaigning for any issues beyond what has an immediate impact on the working environment should be completely taboo"
I have no problem with this if the members want it: provided that membership is (as it is in this example) voluntary.
I don't know much about Quebec in this regard. Does the labor law force workers to join unions as a condition of employment? Or is this decision left to each individual worker?
Unless the state is "right to work" (which protects workers' rights regardless of whether they join political organizations), such a store is a lost cause. To keep it open, Wal-Mart would have to force the workers into the union whether it was in their interest or not. If I ran that company, I would not be proud to have such a store in the chain. Do you what states these stores were in?
"Thanks to bad labor law, the union vote at this store means that Wal-Mart workers here will all be forced to join a political organization against their will."
"Yeah, Wal*Mart workers are free to give money to unions. They just better not join them, or if they do, take part in any union activity."
How is this any worse than Costco firing workers for refusing to take part in any union activity? Thanks for the dead/locked Salon link, by the way.
Did this union have entirely voluntary membership? If not, did it force members to give to political causes and candidates? Only if the answer is yes to the first and no to the second can we talk about it being legitimate.
Often, these things are still easier in the GUI. Is "oowrite" always in that /usr/bin whatever folder mentioned in the parent? Then you can go to the CLI and start it in the time it takes you to fish around and search all over the screen for menus and icons that are might not even be in the same place from bootup to bootup, and will certainly never been in the same place from different machine to different machine.
"But my point was that most of the time, I run synaptic, install a package, then hit the gnome Applications menu and find it right away."
What if you have 60 or so applications? Or synaptic is in a sub menu? You'll have a lot of squinting and hunting to do. Chances are, the CLI user will have started synaptic and will be deep into use of it while you are still hunting for the name of it in the GUI. And when you install more apps, likely synaptic will move to another place in the menu list if it is alphabetized.
There is a lot of improvement to be made to the GUI. Nothing, not even Mac OS X has approached the ease of use of an ancient DOS menu utility I last saw 12 years ago. It came on right after bootup, and you pressed an alphabetic letter to start an app. Sure, the environment left something to be desired in other ways, but the ease of use in launching was unmatched, especially compared to cluttered and wildly inconsistent GUI desktops.