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?

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

No, I haven't read that book. I think the kids read it in the year of English that I skipped.

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

You didn't miss much. While it did give rather gruesome examples of the Chicago stockyard it was mostly a Socialist tract about how great the worker is. Now while being a worker myself, I also belive in the roll of the employer. Mainly because I wish one day to be one myself.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Also, there are a great many things human beings have done in the past that I don't believe them capable or willing to do again.

I don't think that if anti-slavery laws were abolished, we'd have sudden explosions of southern plantations being run by slave labor anymore.... do you, really?

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

I don't think that if anti-slavery laws were abolished, we'd have sudden explosions of southern plantations being run by slave labor anymore.... do you, really?

Something you don't here much is slavery wouldn't have been financially viable thirty years down the road. The seeds of the Industrial Revolution were already planted and growing and having to keep large groups of people around that you have to feed and house to work your farm would've been bankrupting.

oh julia

[(Anonymous)]

It's sweet and wonderful that you don't think people will sink into the barbarism of the past, but I can't agree with you. Slavery is alive and well in the world.

You're right about Southern Plantations in America. If the anti-slavery laws were abolished, the Old South wouldn't rise from it's grave.

I believe that groups of people are capable of more heartless evil than individual people {of course there are psychopathic exceptions to this}. On the other hand, groups can sometimes distance themselves from their prejudices better than can an individual, which is why a congress or Supreme Court composed largely of slightly prejudiced people can still work hard and come up with non-prejudiced decisions. Sometimes.

[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?)

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

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

(to steal Brian's commenting style)

Don't surround yourself with many capitalists, eh? :)

I don't think it's possible for a company to hide its practices forever. Even if someone... no, many someones (a company isn't run by just one person, many people know how things work) conspired together to keep practices a secret, things would leak out and people would eventually know.

I don't think truth in advertising even works, to tell the truth. I know the laws exist and I don't believe much that's in advertising anyway. The hope is to get the rest of the American consumer base to feel the same.

[doteatop.livejournal.com]

I don't know, i think i see a good number of capitalists - and am in a good position to evaluate the effects of a perfectly free market.

And, advertising is a huge industry. It affects consumer choices.

[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.

[ex-dervish821.livejournal.com]

if it's truly that much of a hassle, they could give it away.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yep, no rich person ever invests their money in their company, or donates to charities, or creates scholarships, or anything but keep their money locked up tight in a high-security vault.

[goldbug.livejournal.com]

1. the rich don't manage their own money unless they want to. if they're smart, they don't. they hire a professional.
2. being rich doen't demand social obligations. sure, if you're rich and want to belong to the country club or whatever, you can. but having money doesn't force you to hang out with any particular social group if you don't want to.
3. stockholders? the company? that's not the only way to become rich. anyone with a certain level of wealth doesn't need to keep working. if someone rich is devoting most of his or her time to running a company and keeping stockholders happy, it's by choice, not necessity.
4. lots of people have unhappy marriages for lots of reasons. but if we're just focusing on money, what proof do you have that the rich have less fufilling marriages than the poor?
5. same for the long lives. i'd be really suprised to hear that the life expectancy for the population in the upper 5% income bracket is lower than that for the lowest 5%.
6. if you had a family, you might worry more about kidnappers if you were rich than if you were poor. but you would worry a lot less about having money to feed them, take them to the dentist, keep a roof over their heads, etc.

in conclusion, i just can't feel sorry for a rich person who thinks it's worse to be rich than to be poor. sure, being rich has its problems and complications, but i think that most people would rather be rich than be poor. certainly, anyone who is rich has the option of giving away all his or her money. the rich people who don't do that have obviously decided that having money is preferable to not having it.

Re:

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I don't think Brian was saying that it's worse to be rich than poor, not at all.

He was simply stating that having money doesn't mean you have no cares in the world.

[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)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Thank you for debating with me in a sane manner, Lyle.

First off, the amount of power they wield is the amount of power the public lets them wield. ;)

I agree that the current American populace is not interested and informed enough to make an ideal free market economy work. Part of making it work would involve educating and involving that populace.

Also, the whole thing would work on a sliding scale. "Made with freshly squeezed babies eyes" on a label would probably not sell a single product... yet meat products would sell to some people and not to others, because there are some who don't like to eat meat and some who do. The people who don't like to, don't have to buy the product, don't have to work for the company, etc. It would balance.

I know it's a matter of idealism, and I'm happy with that. I know I'm an idealist.

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

"made with loving child slave labor"

It's rather widespread knowledge that child slave labor is used to make many products. People just don't care. Remember when it used to be a big thing (mid 80's) to have labels that said "Made in America" very prominent on consumer goods? It stopped being that way because the American corporations themselves took the labor out of the country for the cheaper labor.

I think it have to change alot before boycotts would have any major effect.

I agree with you. Boycotts are rather ineffective against any decent sized corporation. They just have their fingers in too many pies. Disney leaps to mind. So does AOL/Time Warner. Sure you might boycott the most obvious portion of them (you don't use AOL, you don't watch Disney movies) but you're still going to use them without your knowledge unless you really bone up on their holdings. And that's beyond most consumers to be honest.

[gager.livejournal.com]

What bad grammer. I should reread my posts. :)

*ahem*

I think a lot would have to change before boycotts would have any major effect.

[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