If unionizing is bad why isn't incorporation?

[untermensche]

why should they have to?

They don't. Again I stress the word "voluntary".

If workers want to voluntarily form corporations (with all the awesome legal privileges that entails) and sell their labor in voluntary transactions that is fine by me.

Can workers voluntarily vote to require all workers to be members of the union?

 

[dismal]

They don't. Again I stress the word "voluntary".

If workers want to voluntarily form corporations (with all the awesome legal privileges that entails) and sell their labor in voluntary transactions that is fine by me.

Can workers voluntarily vote to require all workers to be members of the union?

You mean the corporation?

But yeah, no press gangs or indentured servitude.

People who don't want to work for the corporation o'workers selling labor don't have to.

 

[untermensche]

Can workers voluntarily vote to require all workers to be members of the union?

You mean the corporation?

But yeah, no press gangs or indentured servitude.

People who don't want to work for the corporation o'workers selling labor don't have to.

No. Capitalism has artificially separated the corporation into workers and managers.

I'm talking about workers. The most essential thing to most corporations.

Can workers vote to require all workers be part of the union?

 

[ksen]

why should they have to?

They don't. Again I stress the word "voluntary".

If workers want to voluntarily form corporations (with all the awesome legal privileges that entails) and sell their labor in voluntary transactions that is fine by me.

If it's fine by you then I guess you're not who the OP was addressed to. There are plenty on the Right that can't stand unions and would like to see them abolished. So my question to them is how come it's ok for capital to organize by incorporation but it isn't ok, in their view, for labor to organize by unionization.

 

[dismal]

You mean the corporation?

But yeah, no press gangs or indentured servitude.

People who don't want to work for the corporation o'workers selling labor don't have to.

No. Capitalism has artificially separated the corporation into workers and managers.

I'm talking about workers. The most essential thing to most corporations.

Can workers vote to require all workers be part of the union?

In this thread we are getting rid of unions and replacing them with corporations of workers entitled to all the special rights and privileges of corporations.

But the workers can call the corporation "Union Something" or "Something Union" if they want. I think "Union Carbide" and "Western Union" are already taken.

 

[dismal]

They don't. Again I stress the word "voluntary".

If workers want to voluntarily form corporations (with all the awesome legal privileges that entails) and sell their labor in voluntary transactions that is fine by me.

If it's fine by you then I guess you're not who the OP was addressed to. There are plenty on the Right that can't stand unions and would like to see them abolished. So my question to them is how come it's ok for capital to organize by incorporation but it isn't ok, in their view, for labor to organize by unionization.

I already answered that. I have no problem with workers voluntarily forming Corporations and selling their services to willing customers in voluntary transactions.

What I object to about Unionism is the non-voluntary aspects of it.

 

[ksen]

So your only objection is to closed shops?

 

[untermensche]

No. Capitalism has artificially separated the corporation into workers and managers.

I'm talking about workers. The most essential thing to most corporations.

Can workers vote to require all workers be part of the union?

In this thread we are getting rid of unions and replacing them with corporations of workers entitled to all the special rights and privileges of corporations.

But the workers can call the corporation "Union Something" or "Something Union" if they want. I think "Union Carbide" and "Western Union" are already taken.

This thread is about the similarity between collected labor and collected capital.

And the fact that one is attacked from the right, granted the other is attacked from the left.

There are no corporations of workers.

They are worker owned and managed companies, where ownership is conferred through labor.

A corporation means ownership through buying stock, not through labor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Labor banding together in the form of a union to sell labor = bad

Capital banding together in the form of a corporation to sell a product = good

Why?

Apples & oranges.

The equivalent of labor banding together to form unions is corporations banding together to fix prices or blacklist workers. Somehow I don't think you'll like it as well with a correct comparison.

 

[untermensche]

If it's fine by you then I guess you're not who the OP was addressed to. There are plenty on the Right that can't stand unions and would like to see them abolished. So my question to them is how come it's ok for capital to organize by incorporation but it isn't ok, in their view, for labor to organize by unionization.

I already answered that. I have no problem with workers voluntarily forming Corporations and selling their services to willing customers in voluntary transactions.

What I object to about Unionism is the non-voluntary aspects of it.

What's not voluntary about voluntarily working at a place that requires you be part of the union? If you don't want to be part of the union don't work there. You have a free choice.

It's no different in any way from voluntarily working at a place that requires you wear clothes.

Who claims that when your workplace requires you wear clothes that is some infringement of rights?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How would that be different from a labor union?

No special federal labor union protections.

Just free association and mutually voluntary transactions.

A union can't exist without federal protection--otherwise it would be found guilty of anti-trust violations, perhaps of extortion.

 

[untermensche]

No special federal labor union protections.

Just free association and mutually voluntary transactions.

A union can't exist without federal protection--otherwise it would be found guilty of anti-trust violations, perhaps of extortion.

A union can exist if ownership allows it.

A union should exist if workers in a democratic election vote to be part of a union.

And those votes should be open and mandatory and annual.

 

[ksen]

Labor banding together in the form of a union to sell labor = bad

Capital banding together in the form of a corporation to sell a product = good

Why?

Apples & oranges.

The equivalent of labor banding together to form unions is corporations banding together to fix prices or blacklist workers. Somehow I don't think you'll like it as well with a correct comparison.

Somehow I don't think you'd recognize a correct comparison if it rose up and bit you.

- - - Updated - - -

No special federal labor union protections.

Just free association and mutually voluntary transactions.

A union can't exist without federal protection--otherwise it would be found guilty of anti-trust violations, perhaps of extortion.

Neither can a corporation.

 

[dismal]

So your only objection is to closed shops?

I've used the word "voluntary" like what 8 times in this thread?

I have problems with all of the involuntary aspects of unionism.

If there are 10 corporate cafeteria employees who want to form their own company called Arawark to sell their company cafeteria worker services I am ok with that. If 6 want to do it but 4 don't and the government forces the 4 who voted no to join Arawark I am not ok with that.

If the company wants to deal with Arawark and voluntarily signs a contract with them - even an exclusive contract - for cafeteria worker services then I am ok with that. If the government forces the company to deal with Arawark and/or prohibits them from hiring permanent replacements for the employees I am not ok with that.

When in doubt voluntary is ok, involuntary is not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A union can't exist without federal protection--otherwise it would be found guilty of anti-trust violations, perhaps of extortion.

A union can exist if ownership allows it.

A union should exist if workers in a democratic election vote to be part of a union.

And those votes should be open and mandatory and annual.

That's not an answer.

If the auto workers get together and dictate terms to the auto makers we call that a union. If the auto makers get together and dictate terms to the workers we call that anti-trust and throw them in jail.

Yet it's the same action.

 

[untermensche]

A union can exist if ownership allows it.

A union should exist if workers in a democratic election vote to be part of a union.

And those votes should be open and mandatory and annual.

That's not an answer.

If the auto workers get together and dictate terms to the auto makers we call that a union. If the auto makers get together and dictate terms to the workers we call that anti-trust and throw them in jail.

Yet it's the same action.

Unions don't dictate anything. They negotiate.

But dictates from management have nothing to do with negotiation.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is always a shock to hear from people who've never been in a union try to tell people how a union works.

 

[dismal]

It is always a shock to hear from people who've never been in a union try to tell people how a union works.

Well fortunately I was forced to be in a union when I was young. In a minimum wage job. It's fun to pay mandatory union dues when you're making minimum wage.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is always a shock to hear from people who've never been in a union try to tell people how a union works.

Well fortunately I was forced to be in a union when I was young. In a minimum wage job. It's fun to pay mandatory union dues when you're making minimum wage.

Cool story bro.

 

[untermensche]

It is always a shock to hear from people who've never been in a union try to tell people how a union works.

Well fortunately I was forced to be in a union when I was young. In a minimum wage job. It's fun to pay mandatory union dues when you're making minimum wage.

How exactly were you forced to work at that job?