No, there isn’t. The concept is mostly just a way for the employers and their ilk to demonize unions and, by extension, their members. We’ve covered that ground here before in many union threads, including this one.
Of course, every rebellion is a form of gambling.
Striking is not gambling. It is part of negotiations. If this guy allows that striking is gambling then pretty much anything and everything he does is a gamble. Crossing the street is a gamble! I’m betting the benefit of going where I want to go against the chance that I might get hit by a car.
To be fair to Flanders, insurance pretty much is gambling. What makes it work is that you are betting on an event that you actively don’t want to happen.
A few years ago a Boston area furniture store offered a [del]gamble[/del] deal where if the Red Sox won the World Series, furniture purchases before some date in April would be refunded (i.e., free). I offer without further discussion, that this is equivalent to betting X dollars that the Red Sox win the World Series.
The company had to make a big point that they bought insurance to cover the costs of the payout. They had been accused of rooting against the Red Sox for financial reasons, which would be very very bad for them. With the insurance, they advertised that they wanted the Red Sox to win and it wasn’t against their financial interests.
Anyway, the Red Sox happened to win the World Series that year. I didn’t gamble on them, but I know people who did and got the furniture that they bought because they actually needed it free.
My point? That “insurance” was gambling. I can’t see it any other way.
Striking absolutely carries an element of risk and uncertainty, so I guess you could call it a gamble in that sense. But the guy referred to in the OP is the kind of religious that I despise, eg “I’m going to rationalize my choices and then say it’s religiously mandated”. Their interpretations always seem so, I don’t know, convenient…
My error; you are correct that the purpose of such laws are to prevent employers from entering into these agreements.
Nicely put. In the same way, employers should be free to fire anyone who tries to organize a union, or goes on strike. There isn’t anything unfair about that. If you don’t like the conditions of employment, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Well said.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah, so you want to argue about what should be, rather than what is. I can do that too: employers should pay their employees a fair wage and respect them as fellow human beings; if they don’t employees should be free to show similar attitudes and considerations towards their employers. There isn’t anything unfair about that, right?
If employers don’t pay a fair wage, then the employees should quit and go work for someone that does pay a fair wage. The employer will then be forced to raise it’s wages in order to have enough labor that it needs.
It’s the same way as any other resource that a company may need. If it needs widgets as raw materials to produce sproggles, and it won’t pay the widget producer the price he wants for his widgets, then the widget producer will sell to someone else. The sproggles producer will be out of luck, since he won’t have any widgets as raw materials, and will be forced to raise the price he is willing to pay for widgets, as long as he wants to produce sproggles.
So are you arguing that the government should not set a minimum wage? That seems to be one aspect of what you wrote.
No I have never been in a union, never felt the need. I have been approached and politely declined. My only real exposure comes from the media representations of industrial disputes. It is from there that I hear the confrontational language, and see the picket line bullying and intimidation. Against people who’s only wish is to continue to work.
The real test of such a situation comes when I, as a non-union worker, continue to work while others are strike.
I hope you would defend my right to do so, just as I would defend your right to strike.
Sadly, most industrial disputes do not pan out like that and those continuing to work can end up bullied and victimised. That is indefensible. It is every persons right to do with their labour as they see fit.
If that is not the case with your union then you have a fine set-up and I applaud it.
How is that gambling?
No dancing on my my part. If the marriage/union is no longer what it was then yes, of course, we are all free to withdraw.
It was merely seeing what your concept of equality is. You said earlier that non-union members shouldn’t benefit from union-negotiated deals. I was just seeing if you’d agree that the reverse holds true.
Well almost by definition if the disagreement is so fleeting and low level then it doesn’t harm the workplace environment.
You’re still dancing. The question isn’t whether or not a person can withdraw. The question is whether or not it’s okay to violate the vow you took. Is it okay to cheat on your spouse? Not “leave your spouse” but “cheat on your spouse”.
I’ll try to be clearer this time, with a question that really only needs a “yes” or “no” answer: do you think it’s okay for a person to violate their marriage vows by cheating on their spouse?
Vow?
Look, it ain’t a marriage. If a person feels the union isn’t working for him personally, he is free to do many things. He can leave the union and become an objector, he can leave the job entirely, he can campaign for the union’s decertification or deauthorization.
These are legal choices. They may in individual cases be morally correct. What does a vow have anything to do with it, except to put a semi-legitimate sheen on more extreme measures someone might take to prevent another from exercising these protected rights?
If the other partner is blameless then no, I don’t think it would be right. If you no longer value the union (of either type) then you should leave it and terminate the agreement.
That’s not an aspect of anything I wrote.
When you join a union a you take an oath. Either taking an oath means something to you or it doesn’t. Other things that involve taking an oath include testifying in court, getting married, and joining the army/navy/air force/marines. If a person has not eschewed their oath, they are still bound by it, and thus, a union member is bound by oath to submit to the will of the majority. And if that means striking, then they are bound by oath to join the strike.
I agree that a person is free to leave the union, and forsake their oath. But unless and until they do that, they should do what they promised to do and support the efforts of the union (just like a married person should not cheat on their spouse; they should seek to dissolve the marriage before they get involved with another person; see the similarity?).
Sure it is. If you think employees should just not work for an employer who isn’t paying a fair wage, how can you justify the government telling an employer what is the minimum he has to pay? After all, if no one will work for him because his wages aren’t good enough, eventually he’ll just have to raise it until people will work for him, thus that’s the wage that is fair, right? I mean, if he can find people willing to work for US$1.00 a day, then that’s a fair wage, isn’t it?
That’s all you got, from my first comment. Nice deflection. :rolleyes: Typical Bo tactic.
My comment had nothing to do with the minimum wage. You brought up the fair wage comment. If an aircraft manufacturer doesn’t want to increase wages from $14.25 hour to $15.00/hour, some employees might consider the lack of increase to not be fair. If so, then they should leave and find other work.
If you mean “is it gambling for purposes of this co-worker’s religious beliefs,” then the answer is yes–that co-worker is an expert on the exact contours of his own belief and has made his decision. It may or may not be gambling as defined for a multitude of other purposes.