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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

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?

[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...

[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)

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]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

"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]

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!

[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]

Actually many of them did move. Some of my relatives are Mormon and that side of the family dates all the way back to the founding of the religion. I have family records of those people moving many many times to avoid being persecuted.

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. ~_^

[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.