# Labor 101, or why strikes are okay **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2023, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700 "2023-09-06T18:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/41 "2023-09-07T11:50:42Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I don’t have a “unions bad” bias, I have a “compulsion to join a union bad” bias You don’t have a “compulsion to join a subcontractor” bias. Why is that? It is perfectly legal everywhere to hold interviews for a job and offer a person that job through an agency, where the prospective employee is required, as a condition of employment, to join a separate legal entity in order to fill the role interviewed for. The only time it even raises an eyebrow is if the interviewee doesn’t know this from the start. Telling someone that to work in this place, in this job, you have to join XYZ staffing agency, is legal everywhere. Telling someone that to work in this place, in this job, you have to join XYZ union, is illegal in some places. It isn’t illegal because forcing someone to join XYZ as a condition of employment is bad, it’s because the government wants to reduce the influence of unions. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/42 "2023-09-07T12:00:09Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You don’t have a “compulsion to join a subcontractor” bias. Why is that? When you work for a subcontractor, your employer is the subcontractor, not the end client. If the subcontractor requires union membership as a condition of working for them then my objection still holds. If the unions were operating purely as an employee agency with all the restrictions that implies then I’d have no problem with such an arrangement. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/43 "2023-09-07T12:10:34Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > That specific exception is already well reasoned in many places and the union practices you approve of are outlawed. i.e. you cannot have the union dictating who can and cannot be hired. That’s not a social good, that’s just an inaccurate statement of the restriction. (Again, the company gets to choose who can and cannot be hired; they do not have to agree to exclusivity, but when they agree to exclusivity, that’s when they’re making part of the hiring choice). > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The social good is the wider freedom of employers to employ non-union workers and for non-union workers to more freely choose where they work. Again, you’re restating the restriction in a weird way rather than explaining why it’s a good thing. Why is that beneficial in a different way from eliminating other exclusivity? “The social good is the wider freedom of restaurants to serve non-Pepsi products and for non-Pepsi companies to more freely choose where they sell their products.” “The social good is the wider freedom of universities to serve non-Chartwell food and for non-Chartwell companies to more freely choose where they sell their food.” “The social good is the wider freedom of the Olympic Games to sell their games to other TV channels and for non-NBC channels to more freely choose what airtime they provide.” Are you in favor of eliminating all exclusivity arrangements in all commercial contracts? If so–if you want to dramatically limit the freedom to enter into agreements–you need to explain why. If not, you need to explain what makes union exclusivity so different from every other sort of exclusivity. The rest of your post, about “great conditions and benefits,” is a distraction not worth addressing. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/44 "2023-09-07T12:11:03Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Unions aren’t political parties. You’re kidding us, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/45 "2023-09-07T12:12:41Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > You’re kidding us, aren’t you? Say what now? This isn’t a matter of debate, with the possible exception of things like the Chinese Communist Party, and even there I’m not sure it’s debatable. It’s like saying, “Tigers aren’t canines.” To argue otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the words in the sentence. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/46 "2023-09-07T12:16:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Chartwell Catering has exclusive arrangements with a local university to provide all their food, to the extent that a department secretary may not pick up donuts from Krispy Kreme for a staff meeting. Is that an imposition on the secretary’s freedom of association? Speaking as someone who works for a city government where we have approved vendors for just about _everything_, it get shady if the secretary, boss, or whoever is doing this of their own personal goodwill, as opposed to buying an official dozen donuts for an official staff meeting. Put another way, if I randomly decide on the way into work to buy a couple dozen donuts out of my own pocket for my co-workers, that’s ok- I’m doing that in my capacity as @Bump, an all around good guy, and that’s ok. But if I have an official staff meeting where I’m agreeing to provide food or something, then yes I’m required to go through one of the approved vendors. If the donut vendor started trying to crack down on/intimidate people bringing in stuff on their personal dime for their co-workers _in no official capacity_, then yeah, it would be problematic, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/47 "2023-09-07T12:17:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Speaking as someone who works for a city government where we have approved vendors for just about _everything_, it get shady if the secretary, boss, or whoever is doing this of their own personal goodwill, as opposed to buying an official dozen donuts for an official staff meeting. This is true, but I’m struggling to see how you’re tying this back to the union conversation. Are you making a broader point about labor, or nitpicking Chartwell’s exclusivity deal for the fun of it, or something else? ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/48 "2023-09-07T12:21:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Closed shops arrived at through contract negotiations are valid exercises of worker power.** Everyone has freedom of association. People who join a union are free to work where they want. They’re free to say, “I’ll only work at a business that only hires union people.” Businesses are free to hire who they want. They can choose to hire union members or not. Non-union members are free to work for any business that agrees to hire them. If a union and a business come together and agree on exclusivity, that’s well within their freedom of association. Preventing such an agreement is an infringement on the freedom of both union and business. From Wikipedia: > A **pre-entry closed shop** (or simply **closed shop** ) is a form of [union security agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement) under which the employer agrees to hire [union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times to remain employed. So if someone wants to be employed by a company, they must first join the union. Is there any guarantee of a job, or do they enter some sort of queue directed by the union leaders? No business leader would freely agree to such a premise. They’d only do so under the hardship of their business going under. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/49 "2023-09-07T12:22:12Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > When you work for a subcontractor, your employer is the subcontractor, not the end client. We’re talking about freedom of association here. You’re saying it’s OK for an employer to compel membership in a separate entity as long as they arrange it the right way. I have a problem with that. Compelling membership in separate entities is either acceptable behavior, or it is not acceptable. Saying it becomes acceptable by the act of flowing wages through that separate entity’s bank account is a cop out. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/50 "2023-09-07T12:24:49Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > We’re talking about freedom of association here. You’re saying it’s OK for an employer to compel membership in a separate entity as long as they arrange it the right way. You are employed by the subcontractor, not the end client, you were never employed by them in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/51 "2023-09-07T12:26:06Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So if someone wants to be employed by a company, they must first join the union. Is there any guarantee of a job, or do they enter some sort of queue directed by the union leaders? > > No business leader would freely agree to such a premise. They’d only do so under the hardship of their business going under. RE: the first paragraph, see post 26. RE: the second paragraph, so what? Businesses sign all sorts of contracts as a way to keep their businesses afloat. Are we going to claim that any contract signed as a way to keep the business operating is not freely signed? That’s gonna rock capitalism to its core. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/52 "2023-09-07T12:27:20Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > You are employed by the subcontractor, not the end client, you were never employed by them in any way. Like I said, you are FINE with compelling associations, as long as the employer has a legal fig leaf to cover their demands. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/53 "2023-09-07T12:30:50Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Like I said, you are FINE with compelling associations, as long as the employer has a legal fig leaf to cover their demands. in what way is the employment agency or subcontractor compelling association? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/54 "2023-09-07T12:31:37Z")
Huh. A correction to the correction: not all closed shop workplaces require union membership prior to hiring. From that wikipedia link: > [@](#): > > A **pre-entry closed shop** (or simply **closed shop** ) is a form of [union security agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement) under which the employer agrees to hire [union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times to remain employed. This is different from a post-entry closed shop (US: [union shop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop)), which is an agreement requiring all employees to join the union if they are not already members.[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#cite_note-1) In a union shop, the union must accept as a member any person hired by the employer.[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#cite_note-Pynes-2) The OP should be corrected to read that a **post-entry closed shop** is a valid exercise of worker power. If someone wants to change that to a shop that requires agency fees of nonmembers, I’m cool with that as well, but for practical reasons; in theory the exclusivity behind a closed shop seems a perfectly legitimate sort of exclusivity, and its legal status is primarily based on anti-labor activism on the part of business owners. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/55 "2023-09-07T12:35:12Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > in what way is the employment agency or subcontractor compelling association? Acme Co exclusively employs MP associates at their factory. Omega Corp exclusively employs AC associates at their factory. I apply at both. Acme: “Wanna work here? Go by MP and join up with them.” Omega: “Wanna work here? Go by AC and join up with them.” Of MP and AC, one of them is a union, and one of them is a temp agency. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/56 "2023-09-07T12:36:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Again, you’re restating the restriction in a weird way rather than explaining why it’s a good thing. Only 10% of workers in the USA are members of a union. I think ensuring that that 90% retains access to all the available jobs with the option of freely choosing union membership or not is a good thing. We aren’t going to agree on this. You would prefer that they can be compelled to join unions to work for certain organisations. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Are you in favor of eliminating all exclusivity arrangements in all commercial contracts? I think commercial entities and the contracts they enter into are a different subjects to individuals employment contracts. Contract law and employment law precedents think so to. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/57 "2023-09-07T12:38:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Of MP and AC, one of them is a union, and one of them is a temp agency. So you are saying that there is no difference between a union and an employment agency? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/58 "2023-09-07T12:40:20Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So you are saying that there is no difference between a union and an employment agency? I mean, the union looks out for the workers and the temp agency doesn’t, but for purposes of exclusivity in contracts, no: they should be treated the same. If one of them can make an exclusive contract with a company, then the other should also be able to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/59 "2023-09-07T12:44:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I mean, the union looks out for the workers and the temp agency doesn’t, In this scenario are the unions the _employers_ of the workers in the same way that the agency is? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/60 "2023-09-07T12:44:59Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > in what way is the employment agency or subcontractor compelling association? It’s the business that needs a job filled that is compelling association. You are accepting that, because the business is providing a convenient legal arrangement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700.md?page=4)