SQ 695

[juldea]

Alright, kids, keep your heads on and let's talk about this reasonably :)

The wording of State Question 695 is here.

Those words are very simple. They mean that in order to get a job, someone doesn't have to be forced to join andor pay dues to a particular private organization. For example (and it's a bad example, as you'll see below), I don't have to join the Baptist Church and regularly tithe to work at Saxon.

To me, just from those words right there, I can't even FATHOM an objection to voting yes on this referendum. I blink in astonishment when I see something objecting to it. How in the world to people justify themselves in calling for such a restriction on freedom of (non)assembly?

I thought up something last night, thinking about it. If it were part of the employer's decision, what kind of employee they want to hire, I'm okay with that. If Saxon only wants Baptists to work here, that's fine by me, and I'll go give out my services to someone who will better appreciate them. Saxon will suffer from its pigheadedness. I have a very strong belief in that kind of free-market balance - if you don't like something a company is doing, don't support it. Don't work for them, don't buy from them (a la my family's boycott of Tyson Chicken... ask sometime).

But I'm getting off track. It turns out that employers can't even do that kind of thing, so that's not part of what SQ 695 is opposing. 695 is opposing the private organizations from making restrictions on who the companies can employ, not caring what either the employers OR, more importantly, the employees want.

So today I got on the web to try and figure out what the possible objections to this were. Now, I immediately throw out anything that doesn't stem from just those words in the state question, so arguments about people destroying unions and lowering wages didn't interest me. I wanted examples of why it's necessary to take away the personal choice to join an organization.

The first thing I found that I took as a legitamite opposition was that if a person is not required to join and pay dues to an organization that nevertheless benefits that person, it's detrimental to the organization. That is a valid point. However, it seems like it's those organizations own damn faults... I have come across many web pages describing many organizations' struggles for exclusive representation. It doesn't seem like they would have many problems, seeing how they have to fight to get exclusive representation, to not instill it. If an employee doesn't pay dues, they don't get benefits, period. That seems like a perfectly rational and easy to plan argument to me. Of course, it only works if the organizations really are created only to work for the benefit of the workers, but I like to work in ideals, and that's the ideal.

That would do absolutely nothing to detriment the organizations. They'd be getting rid of a drain on their resources, free-riders. If the organizations really do promote betterment of the workplace, they won't lose any members, and will gain more who want the benefits of joining.

So I figured that solved that, and wondered about possible other oppositions. I only found one other that I saw valid - if membership isn't mandatory, it's possible that employers would take measures to prevent would-be members from joining. Now, granted, I can see the possiblities there. However, once again, I call upon my faith in free-market workings. If a company won't let you join an organization you want to join, work somewhere else. Take your friends with you. I realize there are many arguments against what I just said, but there are more things you can do if keeping your job is vitally important. Certainly if you want to join this organization that is supposed to work for the betterment of your workplace, there are laws saying that you can't be fired for joining. The point of the organization is to make your workplace better, so if things get WORSE after joining, they're the ones that do something about it.

Anyway, I see that as the most possibly valid argument against 695. However, I don't see that, even then, the ends justify the means. Removing someone's freedom of association and especially freedom to decide where his/her money goes isn't an acceptable solution to that kind of problem.

Also, you all might know that ideally, I believe that companies like to keep their workers happy. Saxon feeds me pizza a lot, and gives me cheap sodas, and a free t-shirt, and all sorts of nice things, and it's a privately-owned company that doesn't have (as far as I know) any outside organizations affecting how things are run.

So, I think that's all I have to say. Unless something pops up that I haven't thought of yet, I'm voting yes.

...and not attending that rally on Sunday. I mean, my whole objection is about people not having to give money to organizations they don't agree with, and I'd have to pay $3 to the anti-695 fund to go on Sunday... maybe I'll stand outside to listen to Kendric, but I gotta stick to my guns otherwise. ;)

.....now time to wait. :)

Comments

[doteatop.livejournal.com]

i'm not about to do battle within the complex dynamic of union - employer - state.

But i would like to drop a word of caution. Free market forces are great for mass-production of consumer goods, but if we only relied on free market forces to regulate industrial practices, then all capital would belong to a few trusts, children would be working in lethally dangerous conditions, there would be no weekend, and all prepared foods would contain lethal strains of e. coli and salmonella, not to mention actual industrial byproducts.

Don't forget about workplace discrimination and harassment, either. And while i'm at it - free speech? With enough concentrated power in corporate hands, it wouldn't last long.

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

but, who cares about all of that, as long as a few individuals can have enough money to do whatever they please?

once again, i just have to shake my head and declare that i don't understand julia.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

And I have to shake my head and not understand any of that.

Does something about owning a corporation, or being a CEO, or basically being someone that earns money from their abilities turn that person from a human being into a devil?

I'm sorry Robert, but I seriously don't believe a word you just said, and I don't understand how you can believe it either.

[starfruit.livejournal.com]

but similiar things did happen during the industrial revolution, which prompted the laws currently in place to be passed. have you ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?

[doteatop.livejournal.com]

Hey, i don't live with my head in the clouds, nor do i have blind faith in free market forces, because i've kept my eyes open. We'll let the following stand as my response to everyone who responded to me:

(especially as i didn't mean to get into this in the first place, i didn't think anyone would contest my statements, honest)

Consumers don't spend their dollars wisely. They often prefer not to know about the practices which resulted in their goods. Even when consumers do desire clear, accurate information, companies conspire to conceal it from them. Without government oversight (the only even okay solution i've heard of so far), consumers would have no way of evaluating a company's claims and practices. (ever hear of "truth in advertising" laws?)

[altair.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's really the point, anyway. Unions have been in decline for a long time now, and not without good reason.

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

The big unions (auto workers and the like) have for various reasons (corruption, disillusioned rank and file, more work going overseas) but the smaller sized ones are still in there (construction workers, etc).

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

Do whatever they wish? The rich are actually quite restrained in what they wish to do. The bulk of their money ties them down and restricts what they can do. Having the kind of money on the order of millions and billions ties you down. Almost all of your spare time would be devoted to taking care of it. What little spare time you'd have would be filled with "social obligations" that wealth of that size demands. They can't just step out and do what they want. Stockholders demand time and if there are no stockholders then the company demands your time to keep it afloat. Chances are good you'll probably have a unhappy marriage too. There is a reason very few rich people live very long lives.

If you had family (wife, husband, children, etc) you'd constantly be worried about them from kidnappers and threats against their lives. You'd be surrounded by security 24/7 and then you'd be worrying about your security on whether or not they were loyal.

It's a case of the grass looks greener on the other side.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

So, explain how we get to "if you don't like a company, don't work for them and don't buy their stuff" to companies that do things people certainly wouldn't like, having all the power?

To me there's no logical chain of cause-and-effect that would have that effect.

[gager.livejournal.com]

Really, it depends on the amount of power they wield.

For instance, if every product came with a little sign on it that said: "made with loving child slave labor" boycotts would probably work.

However, most people don't know the way their products are made, and some honestly don't care. They have other activities that are more important to them on their mind and look for the cheapest products when they go into the store.

It's the general American mentality. I think it have to change alot before boycotts would have any major effect.

If you have an inexpensive product, you'll probably do well in the American marketplace. It's just the way it is.

(I'm just trying to give arguments, so please don't think I'm directly attacking you. I'd be happy to hear counter-arguments. I like debating, it let's me look at things from perspectives I would have never thought of)

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

all prepared foods would contain lethal strains of e. coli and salmonella, not to mention actual industrial byproducts.

All? I think you're overstating here. Now maybe all commercially prepared foods but even that's stretching. Remember that Upton Sinclair's description of a man falling into a vat of meat and being processed is fictional. A good portion of the Jungle is as a matter of fact. The working conditions aren't far off though and they honestly haven't changed much. The only difference is now it's damn near hospital sterile in a meat packing company (first hand experience on all).

Don't forget about workplace discrimination and harassment, either. And while i'm at it - free speech? With enough concentrated power in corporate hands, it wouldn't last long.

You over estimate the power of corporations. Yes, they have tried to suppress free speech but on almost all fronts they have been slapped down (the DMCA being the only big difference and it's getting gnawed at as we speak).

The only way a corporation wins is if you let it win. So you get slapped with a court ordered gag order against your free speech? Who says you have to obey it? Maybe you get a judgement against you? Who says you have to pay it? A piece of paper that you don't agree with. If what you are doing is truly free speech then defy it. Sure you might go to jail for your rights but sometimes you must suffer for your rights. With rights come responsibility to defend those rights and use them correctly. Your rights can only be trampled if you let them be. If you belive in it enough then you should be willing to do anything to preserve them.

The same argument goes for discrimination and harrasment in the work place. Don't like it? Then by all means leave. Can't find another company that will take you? Form your own. If it's a truly widespread problem then you should have no trouble finding workers willing to work in a open enviroment free of all the things they used to have trouble with.

Remember, no one said you have to take what life hands you. If you don't like the path your on then follow another. Or step off the path and forge your own and who knows? You might be remembered for all of history as a revolutionary.

If you find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
- Unknown

He either fears his fate too much or his deserts are too small, who dares not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.
- Montrose's toast

[gager.livejournal.com]

Something that you mention, but that I don't think you may pay enough attention to is this statement that you made:

I thought up something last night, thinking about it. If it were part of the employer's decision, what kind of employee they want to hire, I'm okay with that.

That is the mentality that led to racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and religious discrimination in the workplace. That is now illegal, and believe me, it was a fight to make it so.

Also it was the mentality of employers when they tried to destroy union's existence. You should pick up a US History book and check out the birth of the AFL and the CIO and the things they had to work very hard to stop.

But, back to the issue: To me the mentality which allowers employers to do whatever they want leads to the rest of your objections. I don't know how I feel about this issue in particular, but I can see that we're going to have some fun debating later :)

Peace, out

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

So... by Saxon instituting that everyone who works there has to be Baptist, and me leaving the company to work for someone else, and other people leaving the company where they can have religious freedom somewhere else... somehow that makes Saxon MORE powerful?

[gager.livejournal.com]

That's not what I was saying, but I'll take the bait.

You're applying the principle to a single institution and assuming it would be easy to find work. Religious discrimination like this was rife in England, and people actually came to the new world to escape it. Of course, the only people that could escape where the ones which were pretty well off already.

And religion isn't a good example because it's something you can fake. What a lot of discrimination is based on is gender and race. What if you're living in the south, and you couldn't work for any white owned company for more than a pittance's wage because you were Arab/Black/Colored. Sure, you could move. If you had the money to eat. If you had a way to travel. Or maybe you could walk. If you weren't harrassed everywhere you walked as a worthless vagabond. No, you'll work for the pittance wage because you know you can here and you can eat off it. You're not sure if you go elsewhere that there will be work or that you'll be able to eat.

You're attempting to apply that principle of 'Baptist' discrimination in a single situation. It's whenever you apply those principles on a macrolevel that you see the problems for average individuals.

And removing laws like that, I'm convinced that is what would happen. People would move to areas where their prejudices were backed by the other buisnesses in the area. People would congregate together into their predefined groups. It already happens because discrimination like this already exists.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)

I must admit though that I'm having fun discussing this. yay!

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

That is the mentality that led to racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and religious discrimination in the workplace.

These things were brought about for many reasons. The main one being a deep seated ignorance and even fear of people different from them. The most glaring examples came from small towns with a homogenous populations. Now we have such a diverse society (and yes we do, in California, according to the last census, Caucasians are in the minority now... good thing too) that it would be difficult to be broadly discriminatory in your hiring and expect to have a thriving business.

I do agree with you though. The fight was fought long and hard and I'm proud to call myself American because of those who fought for it.

I belive in unions. I tried to form one at a job I used to work (didn't happen). However I don't believe in being forced to join one if I don't want to or being forced to do anything I don't want to for that matter.

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[cuttooth.livejournal.com]

Well, this certainly is a much debated topic (by the way, I'm moved in now, yipee!!!) and to be honest I don't know what side to take. It doesn't effect me personally, so I don't feel like I really have the right to vote on it. The green party is all about voting no for some reason, although it seems like they shouldn't even have an "official" position. I don't know...I wear the party's t-shirt because it was free, I don't "subscribe to their point of view" in all areas, I guess this should probably be a comment in your late4r post, but I was just here, so what the heck. Anyways, I don't ahve an answer, except to say that I think it's stupid that both arguements on the commercials are the same: "it will lower wages if it passes/doesn't pass" so they're really being confusing. Well, I've completed my 100 word minimum ramble so I'll go away now...

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I don't think that either side that is advertised in the media is talking about the real issue at all. Well, I heard one or two good radio things quoting good ol' whats-his-name who founded the CIO (I think) as saying it was every citizens' right to decide if they want to join a union or not. Duh? :)

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

The Green Party is a big union backer. That's why they are against it.

Two things

[lo5an.livejournal.com]

First, regarding the concert, it was never set up as a benefit to raise money to fight 695. Its more to get the word out against it. Currently any profit is going to the Red Cross. So you can see Kendric and have a clear conscience if you don't mind listening to a little union rhetoric.

Second, regarding "right to work", it has been a long time since it was legal to require someone to join a union to work in the US. There's a fedral law that already makes this illeagle. The "right to work" question in Oklahoma is a different issue, cleverly disguised as this one.

Currently, unions are required by law to represent both union and non-union workers at a shop in contract negotiations.

Non-union memebers of union shops can, if its written into the contract negotiated between the employer and the union, be required to pay the union a representation fee for this service. This representation fee is devoted to contract negotiation and is typically 25-50% of the amount people pay in Union dues.

Is there something wrong with a union wanting to get payed for a service that Fedral law requires it to provide?

695 would take away the unions power to charge non-union members for representation, but it wouldn't remove the union's obligation to provide representation.

Re: Two things

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I thought I had addressed that... In every bit of literature I read online today, from union and non-union sites, I saw that the unions were the ones that fought to gain exclusive representation - I didn't mark down any examples because I was just looking for my own benefit, but there were some major battles where the unions fought in order to secure the right to represent everyone in a company, union OR non-union.

I don't think that a union should be required to represent people who don't pay for that representation, not at all. If they're required to by law, it's a law they themselves fought hard to pass, and I don't think anyone would battle it in court if they were to try to repeal that law.

[withlyn.livejournal.com]

I'm vaguely ambivalent toward the specific issue at hand. I do seem to understand the reasoning for not backing it a little better than you. It is illegal for a union to negotiate a contract that benefits union members more than non-union members. So therefore, any union contract will benefit all employees of the company or none. However, negotiation is a time-consuming and expensive process. So union members pay dues, with the assumption that the investment will be returned in better wages, working conditions, benefits, etc. But, it's just as easy to not pay the dues, and still get the better wages, conditions, and benefits. Well, that clearly jeapordizes the Union's position, when it is in each person's direct personal interest to not be a member. So the Union, which in order to have any power with management is presumably representing a majority of the workers, puts in a contract that everyone must pay Union dues, to pay for the expenses of representation. Of course, that makes everyone a member of the union, and so if at any time a majority of the members want to stop paying their dues, then they can renegotiate. I can't imagine a situation where an employer would continue requiring that employees pay union dues even after the majority of union members would rather not. And there is no law now requiring that anyone force their employees to pay Union dues; it is simply allowed that in a private contract, the employer may make a deal with the majority of the employees requiring that all employees pay union dues (or representation fees) to the Union.

Now, that's an idealized system, and it does involve some people being forced, because they hold the minority view, to do something they don't want to do. That's justifiable as long as the benefits they are receiving actually do make up for the price they must pay. One could imagine, in fact, that the unions merely organize a contract in which the employer pays a certain fee to the Union for each employee, and the employees needn't pay dues. Of course, such a contract wouldn't me nearly as attractive to the employer, and so wage increases and other benefits wouldn't be so great, but if the Union were doing it's job properly, there would still be a net benefit to the employees. Of course, Unions, like any other organization, can easily become overrun by inefficiency, corruption, and beaurocracy, and could in fact end up losing money for all the employees. In that case, I would say, all the dues-paying members of the union should demand a reorganization, but we all know how lazy people are. It's easy to just quit the union and stop paying dues; it's hard to actually do anything about a problem. But the easy way to do something about the problem, ie to quit and stop, is in these particular cases forbidden by contract. So people would just suffer in silence (or more likely, grumble in inaction.)

I think I end up tentatively against Right-to-Work because it's my belief, which I have gained from the long-term observation of humans, at least Americans, that in most instances people will sell-out greater, long-term good for immediate personal gain. It's also my belief that, through simple "natural" selection phenomena, the most ruthless and devious people are the ones most likely to come to any sort of power. This doesn't mean that people can't come to power, be it political or economic, through hard work and vision. But it means that you can't count on it. And so I think that institutions that protect the common person against the ruthless, devious person in power are good things. I think Unions, despite the problems of inefficiency associated with any organization, are one of those things.

What I think isn't terribly important, of course, because we all know that Right-to-Work is going to pass.

[withlyn.livejournal.com]

I had to remove some from that post due to length. Here it is:


I think an alternative, better solution might be to have "right-to-work," but also allow Unions to negotiate exclusive contracts where benefits only apply to their members. Then the "free-loaders" could see what it is like to trust to the mercy and goodwill of the management. If they suffer no harm, then there has been no harm done. If they suffer harm, they can always pay their dues and join the Union.

***

As a philosophical addition to the greater argument that seems to be going on: Although I believe that it is noble to make great sacrifices and endure great hardships to escape oppression, I think that it's much better to structure society in a way that will prevent oppression.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I think that oppressing people in order to prevent oppression isn't a very sound way of doing things.

You're never going to prevent racism by making people hire minorities, for example. It's a personal thing and must be dealt with personally - the government can't mandate emotions, no matter how many laws are passed.

I think more time should be spent on making people reasonable enough to live in an ideal world than creating ways to adapt to the non-ideal world.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

So you don't think that people in power in unions are ruthless and devious?

I don't know any personally. It's just not very consistent to say that your boss is a ruthless devious person in power, but the leader of the big labor union representing you isn't. ;)

[withlyn.livejournal.com]

Sure, there will be ruthless and devious people in power of unions. But in a union, if you don't like the way the leaders are running things, you can vote them out. You can't (in most companies) vote your boss out.

I know it's a very weak argument, but it is the one upon which democracy is founded.