Hacker News Reader

Comment by stale2002 | Hacker News Reader

stale2002

I don't want your union negotiation benefits, though. I don't want to be covered by the union contract.

You should be able to negotiate with your own group of people to get certain benefits, and I should be able to negotiate on my own. And then we could see who really gets the better deal.

Personally I am confident that my own deal would be better, but I have no problem with other people deciding for themselves that they would prefer whatever deal that a union was able to negotiate.

View on HN

I see the exception that proves the rule has showed up. You know it's obvious to me that you're in a privileged position and can leverage this to do quite well in the job market with or without worker collective action. One thing I would say is that even someone like you benefits from unions. Unions have negotiated many benefits we take for granted today and can even benefit workers not in the union. For example, my mother did not go to college and started working straight out of high-school. She was able to get a job that paid her really well considering the time and her inexperience. And she didn't even have to join a union to get it. Instead her employer always kept wages a little above the other unionized shops in town, in order to keep the union at bay. Which is all to say that if common workers in your industry unionize you will probably be able to negotiate an even higher premium in exchange for not joining the union.

Also keep in mind unionization is a freedom which is currently being infringed! I firmly believe that organizations should be able to draw up agreements with another! If a union and a company mutually agree that all the company's workers must join the union, I don't see a problem with that. The fact that our lawmakers are going in and writing backdoors so that this is serious government overreach.

> Which is all to say that if common workers in your industry unionize you will probably be able to negotiate an even higher premium in exchange for not joining the union.

Or the union can force you out of your job by forcing the employer to hire unionized employees only.

That sentence was about joining a firm which doesn't use a unionized workforce (like my mom). That should have been more clear, my bad.

"Also keep in mind unionization is a freedom which is currently being infringed! I firmly believe that organizations should be able to draw up agreements with another!"

Here is why this is incorrect.

It is illegal to fire someone for joining a union. This is a right that all workers have.

For the same reason that it is illegal to fire someone for joining a union, it should be illegal to fire someone for NOT joining a union.

So take you pick. If you want full freedom of association, sure, lets do that. You can make whatever contracts you want, but you can also be fired for it, (ie legalize firing people for joining a union). I think I would be happy with this outcome, to be honest.

But as long as union people are receiving this protection, NON-union people should receive the SAME protection.

If I own a plastic company I can easily write an agreement where, for example, Widget Co. agrees to buy only my plastic for some price. Now imagine a state legislature came in and said that Widget Co. can't write that, that Widget Co. always has to be open to buying plastic from other companies and that when we spend a bunch of time negotiating price and writing a contract, Widget Co. can just run that to a competitor and write a new for one cent less. That's obviously infringing on my ability to write contracts.

But then we do that exact thing when the product is labor and not plastic. Your freedom of association is on the macro level, as in you can go from firm to firm to firm and if that firm requires you to join the union you just keep moving, same as if that firm pays a low wage or has no health insurance or anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com