![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juldeaAlright, 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. :)
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. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 15:53 (UTC)once again, i just have to shake my head and declare that i don't understand julia.
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 16:04 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 16:26 (UTC)Re:
on 13 Sep 2001 16:28 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 16:59 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 17:42 (UTC)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?
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:05 (UTC)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
on 13 Sep 2001 21:03 (UTC)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.
Re: oh julia
on 13 Sep 2001 21:05 (UTC)Re: oh julia
on 13 Sep 2001 21:22 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:11 (UTC)(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:
on 13 Sep 2001 18:21 (UTC)(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.
no subject
on 14 Sep 2001 16:33 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 16:41 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 17:44 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 17:07 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:28 (UTC)Re:
on 13 Sep 2001 18:34 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:44 (UTC)Re:
on 13 Sep 2001 18:46 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:49 (UTC)Re:
Posted byno subject
on 14 Sep 2001 11:05 (UTC)no subject
on 14 Sep 2001 17:01 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 22:41 (UTC)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:
on 13 Sep 2001 22:46 (UTC)He was simply stating that having money doesn't mean you have no cares in the world.