But it was your analogy in the first place! You brought up governmental powers.
Yes and yes. Of course when and how you choose to do these things will effect how easy and painless it is. To jilt a woman at the altar is a dickish thing to do. To reject a proposal is not. To refuse to fight in the middle of a battle is a dickish thing to do, to refuse to mobilise on conscientious grounds is not. To stand on a picket line one day and cross it the next is a dickish thing to do, to object to a strike or refuse to join the union in the first place is not.
They should not expect it, no. Would you also agree that anything gained by personal negotiation doesn’t need to be extended to anyone else?
If it were only a verbal reminder to a member then fine.
Well you leave a ocean of intermediate possibilities here. I would only go as far as a verbal reminder. Anything else is unacceptable and would probably constitute gross misconduct.
Then enlighten me, where have I advocated abolishing freedom of association?
So someone with the relevant skills would only be able to work for such an organisation if they were willing to join that union?
You don’t see anything inherently unfair in such a demand? The adherence to a political position and membership of political organisation as a condition of employment?
I think you and I have different views on what freedom and democracy mean…and I suspect that by any relevant measure you choose to use, I’d be the socialist in this debate!
That’s not what I asked. I asked if, once you’ve taken a vow of marriage, a person was free to choose when to respect the vows they took. Clearly the answer is no, they aren’t. Those vows need to be respected at all times, not just when it’s convenient or easy.
Need to be extended by who? What are you talking about?
So a look of disdain would be unacceptable? How about telling other people what the transgressor did?
As has been established law for many years now, an employer is free to insist that his employees become members of a union. There isn’t anything unfair about it; if you don’t like the conditions of employment, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
I’ve clarified what I consider acceptable in my previous message.
When you talk “verbal recriminations” of “shunning” and “looks of disapproval” I have to wonder whether we are talking about a workplace here or a primary school.
Behaving in that way to someone who merely disagrees with you is not acceptable. It certainly isn’t professional, it is barely even adult.
If they can’t respect the vows then they should withdraw from that contract. They are not bound by them in perpetuity because situations, people and organisations change.
If I as a non-union member manage to negotiate favourable terms for myself then union members should not expect them to be extended to them.
Correct, those behaviours would be unacceptable and potential grounds for gross misconduct.
In the workplace all sorts of behaviours have to be moderated in order to allow for smooth running. We aren’t free to always behave as our gut reactions tell us.
Yes, they are bound by them in perpetuity until and unless they withdraw. If you are a union member, you are bound by your oath, just as a married person is bound by their oath. Your attempt to dance around this concept isn’t very convincing.
This strawman is bizarre and seems to have no bearing on anything under discussion here.
I disagree completely. Until you can show that they rise to such a level as to make the workplace a hostile environment, people are free to show disagreement with each other in many ways.
Actually, I have always supported the old UK system of voluntarism. I’d support a return to allowing that, combined with a roll back of the witch Thatcher’s assaults on workers’ rights.
Getting back to the OP, I’d say striking is not a form of gambling. Gambling is when you’re betting on some external event like a hand of cards, a roll of dice, or the outcome of a sporting event. Even buying stocks could be considered a gamble.
But a strike is not an external event - the striker is part of it. He may gain or lose based on the outcome but that outcome will be determined in part by his own efforts. It’s no more a gamble than owning his own business is a gamble - another situation where his efforts will partially determine how much money he makes. Or suppose he were a professional boxer - would he be gambling if he fought in a championship? He’ll make money if he wins the fight. But it’s not gambling because he’ll earn that money by winning.
This is not the case as I understand it - even in a union shop a person may choose not to belong to the union, and the employer may not terminate that person for that reason so long as the requisite dues or fees are up to date.
Any agreement otherwise would interfere with the employee’s First Amendment right to free association.
Keep in mind that the closed shop, which arrangement you have described above, has been illegal since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed more than sixty years ago.
When the “strike” was first invented the authorities (automatically, apparently, despite the absence of relevant laws) regarded it as a form of rebellion.
What I described is not a “closed shop”; it is a sitation that exists today all over the US. As I said, an employer is free to make union membership a condition of employment if they wish, just as they are free to make completion of college a condition of employment, or a host of other conditions.
All over the US? No, not in right to work states. And even apart from that, workers may decide to become “core” members and not full-fledged members even in a union shop.
I don’t think Bobble actually knows a lot about unions firsthand. Have you even been in one? I’ve been in one for about 10 yrs (maybe even the same one as the OP, as we are in troubled negotiations as well. Hey, Brother!). We’ve always had the option here to pay, or not, union dues. If you don’t pay, you don’t get union representation if you are disciplined, seems to be the major upshot of not paying.
There ain’t no strong-arming here.