An interesting topic has come up at work. I’m a member of a union and we’re on the verge of a strike. A union rep went around today asking us to sign a “strike pledge.” Most of us signed it, but one of my co-workers declined, citing religious reasons. He’s extremely religious (which we already knew) and he claims that while he fully supports the union and the strike, his religious beliefs prevent him from actually going on strike because…it’s a form of gambling. He describes it like a game of “chicken” and says we’re basically betting our salaries that our employer will give up before we do. There’s a wager (the money lost while on strike), an element of uncertainty (which group will concede first), and potential winnings (wage increases).
We had a discussion over it (no pressure, I’m not one of “those” union members) and I wanted to get some other opinions. So what you do you think? Is it gambling?
If striking is gambling, then any form of bargaining is gambling. A striker rejects a particular offer in the hope of getting a better one, in the same way that you might turn down an offer for a house that you are selling in the hope of getting a better one.
The usual religious objection to gambling is that it surrenders control to “luck” or “chance”. Bargaining doesn’t have this characteristic; if your bargaining position does or does not have the outcome you hope for it won’t be because of luck or chance or any random event, but because of the decision made by your bargain counterparty.
Reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where Ned Flanders house is destroyed, and he says he doesn’t have insurance, because he views it as a form gambling.
In other words, your co-worker is an idiot. Everybody takes chances, every day. If you ask a girl out on a date, is it “gambling” because she might say no? If you go yo a restaurant, are you gambling because you might get a bad meal? If you go outside, are you gambling because you might get hit by a bus? If that guys definition of “gambling” is that broad, how does he function as an adult at all?
I suspect his objection is actually political, but by phrasing it as a religious objection because it makes it sound mire important.
This is the thing that always worries me about unions. Anyone should be able to opt in or out of industrial action without any repercussions and should be able to be open about their reasons for doing so.
If this person is resorting to making up excuses for his lack of support what does that say about the union and their current dispute?
I wouldn’t say it formally qualifies as a form of gambling, but I can see his point - and I guess it’s a matter of individual conscience. He probably ought to consider opting out of the union though, if that’s possible, because this is always going to be a sticking point for him.
Almost nothing, really. I mean, yeah, he could be doing this out of a legitimate fear of intimidation. Or he could be looney tunes. It’s one guy. You can’t draw a reasonable inference about the beliefs or behaviors about a large group of people by the actions of one guy, particularly when that guy isn’t even a member of the group in question.
Besides, if his union were going to browbeat him into joining the strike, why on Earth would they let his religious beliefs stop them? Browbeating people into doing what you want is a dick move. Respecting differing religious beliefs is not something a dick would usually do. If his union is going to be dicks about browbeating him, they’re also going to be dicks about respecting his religious beliefs.
Do you say the same thing about taxes, or wars, or building roads or schools or anything else a government does?
Being a union member means taking an oath to abide by the decisions made by the membership (and by the memberships’ duly elected representatives). You don’t get to pick and choose which decisions you’ll abide by; the whole point of the union is to show solidarity with one another so as to present a united front to employers.
As Miller said, it’s one guy; its impossible to make a valid inference about his reasons for not signing the pledge. For instance, you don’t know that he doesn’t support the goals of the negotiations; you just know that he won’t sign the pledge.
ETA: to the OP: no, striking is not a form of gambling. If a coworker of mine used that same reasoning when I was within earshot, I’d have a big :dubious::rolleyes: look going on. I’m sure some here will try and say that would be “browbeating”, but meh.
You choose to be a citizen of a country and abide by its rules, If you don’t like it you are (and should be) free to leave.
So, unless we are talking about being *forced *to be a union member (which is just about as anti-democratic as it is possible to be) then of course one is free to opt out of supporting the union, and to be against whatever action they are taking. That is the essence of a free and democratic society.
Now if this person is a member of the union then I would say they should be free to withdraw from it at any time they like if they don’t agree with the course of action being taken. (or, of course, seek to chance policy from within…the point being that the choice is theirs)
Thereafter, any intimidation or pressure from union members is despicable and cowardly. I’m sure you will agree. You value personal choice I’m sure.
well, you do get to pick and choose by being free to join or leave a union as you see fit.
Very true, We can’t know anything beyond this anecdote. However, unions pressurising and intimidating people into supporting them is always wrong and something we should be vigilant about stamping out.
Why should their be no repercussions? Decisions have repercussions all the time. A union should be completely free to expel a member for not participating in a strike. Union members should be completely free to ostracize a fellow employee (member or not) who refuses to participate in a strike.
And there, in a nutshell, is the mentality that disturbs me. The expulsion is fine but the rest?
What are the acceptable limits of such repercussions or ostracisms?
What should you be able to do a person that merely disagrees with you and declines to support you?
The limits are the law. I have freedom of association - if there is a racist in my office, I should be required to talk to him? To sit with him at lunch? To buddy up to him at the company picnic? I am not talking about physical violence or property attacks, but if someone has shown himself to be on the side of management and against his fellow workers, why should I speak to him, or indeed do anything with him not required by my contract?
If a union decides to shun scabs, why should they not be permitted to do so?
I bring racism into it as, you know, an analogy. A way of making you think about how far you are willing to go to force people to associate with one another.
And it doesn’t matter what the person disagreeing with the union thinks - it matters what the person supporting the union thinks. They are the person you are seeking to abolish freedom of association for.
Not really. Most of us are citizens because we were born here, so the vast majority of us never chose to be a member of a country, we’ve simply chosen not to leave it. Leaving a country is, after all, vastly more difficult than leaving a union. And you can’t just leave a country and be a non-citizen of all countries, AFAIK. Sorry, but your analogy doesn’t hold water.
No, when you take a vow to support something, you don’t get to pick and choose any more. Can you pick and choose when not to cheat on your spouse? Can you pick and choose which orders to obey in the military?
Of course anyone should be free to withdraw from a union at any time. They would then not be able to benefit from the negotiations of the union, of course.
I do value personal choice, and I also value honoring the oaths one has taken. And I suspect that we have different ideas of what “pressure” is going to mean in this situation, as I’d have no problem with reminding someone to honor the oath they took to abide by the decisions of the membership.
Again, I can’t support this statement as I think we have very different ideas of what would constitute pressuring or intimidating. I think it would be wrong to burn someone’s house down and eat their children, but verbally reminding someone of their responsibilities that they voluntarily undertook is fine. Heck, my union even levies fines if people are found to have abrogated certain of their responsibilities in an egregious manner.
You ARE talking about abolishing freedom of association - you just don’t realize it.
At times, yes. But it is a difference irrelevant to the point I am making.
If it is negotiated between the employer and the union representing the workers, then I don’t think government should intervene to prevent such a private relationship.
Well, since you’re the one who keeps talking in absolutes about not pressuring and not intimidating, why don’t you clarify for us what you think is acceptable. Or do you think that nothing is acceptable, as you’re previously written? No verbal recriminations? No shunning? No looks of disapproval?