![[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 16:57 (UTC)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:
on 13 Sep 2001 17:19 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 17:49 (UTC)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!
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:01 (UTC)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.
If it's already happening then what good are the laws we have? But lets be honest here. I don't see a return to the deep South, anti-negro laws. Nor do I see discrimination based laws coming back. There are too many people of different racial backgrounds seeded through all levels of society (two words: Colin Powell, two more: Condoleezza Rice). Besides, the only color that truly counts in business these days is one: green.
I must admit though that I'm having fun discussing this. yay!
You're not the only one. Two more words: you're good. ~_^
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:25 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:29 (UTC)no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:07 (UTC)I think Brian did a good job of saying in brief what I was going to say in many more words. The world has progressed a lot since the days of English religious discrimination and American racial/sexual discrimination. Look at the people all around you and count how many of them really still discriminate for trivial reasons (I consider skill-based discrimination non-trivial, but it's still discrimination). Now, I see that number of people as being very large - I really don't know anyone who would turn away, for example, an african-american for a job simply because of his race. Now I know that people like that still exist in the world, but I dont' think that we should set up our government assuming that those people are the norm. They are the exception and they should be made to know that they are such.
The problem of the grouping still exists, though, but that is an unfortunate effect of the unfortunate prejudices that still remain. My only response to that is that those people cannot completely shelter their lives and their childrens' lives from the rest of the world forever, and if they continue to make their decisions based on petty reasons, their lifestyle will die out.
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 18:26 (UTC)Re:
on 13 Sep 2001 18:30 (UTC)The most recent thing is they've hired religious counselors - the kind that are pastors and don't have degrees in psychiatry - to be there for any of our counselling needs.
This was a few weeks ago, before Tuesday.
I'm still not sure if the "orientation meeting" about those people is mandatory or not. I certainly don't plan on using the service, so I don't plan on attending the meeting...
no subject
on 13 Sep 2001 17:39 (UTC)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