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

[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.

[withlyn.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can "make" people reasonable.

You can't have every right and privelege that would be yours in an ideal world. Life is full of trade-offs. You have to give some things up in order to maintain other things. For instance, we give up the right to keep our money so that the government can protect us and educate our children and support the infrastructure of a high-tech society. It may do a piss-poor job of it, but that's still the principle, and I think it's a better solution to try to make the government to a better job than to say that people who don't like the government no longer have to pay taxes. In some ways, it's a very different situation. In some ways, I don't think it is.

Then again, you're a libertarian, so you probably also see both situations as similar, and have the alternate conclusion, that the government should have less taxes and provide fewer services, on the grounds that private companies would be much more efficient.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I think you (and Lyle, who responded but must have removed his post; at least I got an email about it but don't see it on here) misunderstood my use of the term "make".

I don't mean "make people reasonable" as in "force them to change"... heck I even outright said that was impossible :)

I mean "make" as in "raise the future generations of children to be self-reliant and use their brain in their decisions". I do think that is possible.

My conclusion is to give the government less taxes and provide fewer services, on the grounds that private individuals, small-medium businesses, and local governments are more efficient. I think there's a big difference there. ;) I don't want a world with a lot of Bill Gateses... I want a world with a lot of Thai Kum Koons :)

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.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yep, which is why I prefer... I'm not sure of the official term, but proportional democracies (the format of the labor unions in Europe, as far as I read) to democracy of majority-rules.

If someone doesn't like the way their union is treating them, and they and another small group of people want to vote them out, tough nuts. They're stuck with them (the process of voting out a exclusive-representation labor union looks damn tough, lots of signatures and stuff needed). It would suck the same if the US didn't have the senate and the house held by separate elections, and whatever party the elected president was a member of, would be the complete un-hindered ruling party of the US. That, I have to say, would suck royally.

Labor Unions work that way, though. One union is in, and as long as the majority like it, stays in. That's not very cool for the minority that don't want to be represented by that group.