You have complete choice. You know about the union when you take the job. You are free to not take the job.
Seriously, I hear conservatives bitch about this all the time, but when people are talking about other problems with jobs, they always retort with, "You knew what you were getting into when you took the job." Why is union membership different?
Unions work better in Germany because most German companies value their employees, and don't simply see them as "resources", like a lot of companies over here do. The main reason a union might look at the company as the enemy is because the company started looking at labor as an enemy first.
Employers acting like complete and total shitbags, abusing workers, has absolutely NOTHING to do with government.
If I'm just starting out on my career, I likely don't have any savings anyway. Does that mean employers should be able to walk all over me? According to you, it does.
I like how you point at Greece, but you ignore the rest of the continent that has just as good, if not better safety net, and are doing fine. Why didn't you bring up Germany?
Unions become a problem when they start to see companies as being the enemy, rather than something they're in partnership with.
That happens because Companies themselves have largely refused to see employees as someone they are in partnership with, and rather view them as "resources".
The right to quit is the equivalent to the right to fire.
No it isn't, and to pretend so is absurdly laughable. They are not even close to the same thing. Firing someone means that person no longer has an income, and means that they might not be able to have food, shelter, or clothing. Someone quitting does NOT have that affect.
Employers first. Why do you insist on having this double standard? An employer can fire anyone for just about any reason they want, including giving no reason whatsoever. How the fuck can you not say that is force?
Why do you think you have the right to interfere in the voluntary association between an employee and employer?
Because it's not a 100% voluntary association. You are REQUIRED to have a job to survive in this world. Therefore, the employer is always going to have a large amount of force over you, because they control your very livelihood. If you don't do exactly what they want, then you fucking starve. Does that sound voluntary to you?
Until we get to the situation where one does not have to actually have a job in order to live, your argument has no merit.
No it isn't, and by trying to say so, you have just proven that you don't have any actual arguments.
All you are saying is that you're perfectly fine when the employer uses economic force to make others do what they want (want to actually live and survive in this world? You need a job. And sadly, many people do not have perfect choice of their employers. Therefore, employers have huge amounts of power over their employees, and wield that force against them), but when the employees try to band together and even out some of that power, you're against it. You are completely against the employees having any kind of power whatsoever. And that makes you completely and utterly AGAINST liberty.
You're not spreading any message of "liberty", though. You are spreading a message of allowing others to use force to dominate. You're spreading the message that employers should be free to dominate their employees, and use economic force on them. You're not for liberty at all, you're just for pushing your worldview on others.
No. Just no. Your entire worldview completely ignores the fact that we are not just a bunch of individuals, but we are together members of a collective society. You are not an island unto yourself.
If you want to live that way, then go live by yourself in the middle of nowhere.
you can't violate somebody's right if you are not a government.
Bull fucking shit. Of all the retarded crap you post, this takes the cake. It is entirely possible for private entities to violate your rights, and idiots like you not recognizing that is what leads to most of the abuses in the world.
You completely ignore that employers DO have power over people, and they CAN use force against them. Perhaps not physical force, but definitely economic force, which is just as powerful.
This goes the other way too. There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employees rights as well. If there is a free union of electricians and they provide member training and other benefits and their members have a reputation of excellence an employer should be allowed to require employees join that union.
The problem is, it never, never, ever happens that way. The situation would be an employer looking at someone who is a member of a union and deciding not to hire them because they are a union member, because they don't like treating their employees humanely.
One of the few good things about my previous company, or maybe just one of the many good things about my previous boss, was that he was very good at getting our semi-annual review done in a reasonable amount of time. It might be late from when the company wanted us to have it, but we're talking only a couple of weeks. And contrary to many of the other managers in the company, he actually put quite a bit of thought into the review. He might not put every negative thing into the blurb that the higher ups would read, but he'd definitely make sure that I knew he noticed it, and gave guidance on how to correct it.
No, your statement is just fanboy bullshit. You're honestly trying to say that Android users are somehow more discriminating on the quality of apps they buy than Apple users? Horseshit. A crappy app on iOS is not going to sell any more than a crappy app on Android.
You can buy plenty of pre-paid phones in the US today with no contract at all... but only a minority of users tend to choose this option. If people want to buy on a contract, why would you make this illegal?
Because in just about every case, you do not receive a discount for bringing your own phone, making that option completely worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
You have complete choice. You know about the union when you take the job. You are free to not take the job.
Seriously, I hear conservatives bitch about this all the time, but when people are talking about other problems with jobs, they always retort with, "You knew what you were getting into when you took the job." Why is union membership different?
Unions work better in Germany because most German companies value their employees, and don't simply see them as "resources", like a lot of companies over here do. The main reason a union might look at the company as the enemy is because the company started looking at labor as an enemy first.
Employers acting like complete and total shitbags, abusing workers, has absolutely NOTHING to do with government.
If I'm just starting out on my career, I likely don't have any savings anyway. Does that mean employers should be able to walk all over me? According to you, it does.
I like how you point at Greece, but you ignore the rest of the continent that has just as good, if not better safety net, and are doing fine. Why didn't you bring up Germany?
If existing labor laws protect me sufficiently
That's just the thing: In the US at least, they typically don't.
Unions become a problem when they start to see companies as being the enemy, rather than something they're in partnership with.
That happens because Companies themselves have largely refused to see employees as someone they are in partnership with, and rather view them as "resources".
Yet you rally against unions, and say nothing about the huge fucking abuses of power that employers tend to commit.
There is an imbalance of power, even without corporations. You refuse to recognize it.
The right to quit is the equivalent to the right to fire.
No it isn't, and to pretend so is absurdly laughable. They are not even close to the same thing. Firing someone means that person no longer has an income, and means that they might not be able to have food, shelter, or clothing. Someone quitting does NOT have that affect.
And it's my body, my time, and my effort at risk. So I don't buy the "It's their capital!" argument. Try again.
Fine. Do it without the use of force.
Employers first. Why do you insist on having this double standard? An employer can fire anyone for just about any reason they want, including giving no reason whatsoever. How the fuck can you not say that is force?
Why do you think you have the right to interfere in the voluntary association between an employee and employer?
Because it's not a 100% voluntary association. You are REQUIRED to have a job to survive in this world. Therefore, the employer is always going to have a large amount of force over you, because they control your very livelihood. If you don't do exactly what they want, then you fucking starve. Does that sound voluntary to you?
Until we get to the situation where one does not have to actually have a job in order to live, your argument has no merit.
No it isn't, and by trying to say so, you have just proven that you don't have any actual arguments.
All you are saying is that you're perfectly fine when the employer uses economic force to make others do what they want (want to actually live and survive in this world? You need a job. And sadly, many people do not have perfect choice of their employers. Therefore, employers have huge amounts of power over their employees, and wield that force against them), but when the employees try to band together and even out some of that power, you're against it. You are completely against the employees having any kind of power whatsoever. And that makes you completely and utterly AGAINST liberty.
You're not spreading any message of "liberty", though. You are spreading a message of allowing others to use force to dominate. You're spreading the message that employers should be free to dominate their employees, and use economic force on them. You're not for liberty at all, you're just for pushing your worldview on others.
1). He answered the question you posed.
2). Your examples are so stupidly bad as to not be relevant. And are quite offensive.
You've just shown that you have absolutely no rebuttal for his argument.
Yes, because those other people still insist that they get all the benefits that the union has provided, without any of the responsibility or expense.
No. Just no. Your entire worldview completely ignores the fact that we are not just a bunch of individuals, but we are together members of a collective society. You are not an island unto yourself.
If you want to live that way, then go live by yourself in the middle of nowhere.
No, he's violating your right. You saying it isn't so doesn't make it true. He is directly impeding your right to free movement.
No, it does not violate any employer's "rights". All it does is stop them from imposing their will on others. That is NOT a violation of rights.
you can't violate somebody's right if you are not a government.
Bull fucking shit. Of all the retarded crap you post, this takes the cake. It is entirely possible for private entities to violate your rights, and idiots like you not recognizing that is what leads to most of the abuses in the world.
You completely ignore that employers DO have power over people, and they CAN use force against them. Perhaps not physical force, but definitely economic force, which is just as powerful.
This goes the other way too. There are some laws which prohibit employers from basing hiring on union status. That violates the employees rights as well. If there is a free union of electricians and they provide member training and other benefits and their members have a reputation of excellence an employer should be allowed to require employees join that union.
The problem is, it never, never, ever happens that way. The situation would be an employer looking at someone who is a member of a union and deciding not to hire them because they are a union member, because they don't like treating their employees humanely.
One of the few good things about my previous company, or maybe just one of the many good things about my previous boss, was that he was very good at getting our semi-annual review done in a reasonable amount of time. It might be late from when the company wanted us to have it, but we're talking only a couple of weeks. And contrary to many of the other managers in the company, he actually put quite a bit of thought into the review. He might not put every negative thing into the blurb that the higher ups would read, but he'd definitely make sure that I knew he noticed it, and gave guidance on how to correct it.
if companies can build their own infrastructure, they can compete with each other and offer their own content at better speeds
The point behind net neutrality is that is a pretty big "if". And very few companies are the size of Google.
Should some random podcaster be expected to build their own infrastructure in order to get their content out?
No, your statement is just fanboy bullshit. You're honestly trying to say that Android users are somehow more discriminating on the quality of apps they buy than Apple users? Horseshit. A crappy app on iOS is not going to sell any more than a crappy app on Android.
You can buy plenty of pre-paid phones in the US today with no contract at all ... but only a minority of users tend to choose this option. If people want to buy on a contract, why would you make this illegal?
Because in just about every case, you do not receive a discount for bringing your own phone, making that option completely worthless.
I will definitely replace my Motorola Atrix 4G with this phone
With what phone? The Nexus phones are still made overseas. The streaming media player is what's made here.