🚀 go-pugleaf

Mcallister Brian Francis wrote:

> The Rand decision doesn't force employees to join unions.

No, it forces employees to give unions money.

>  The principle
> is that there are tangible benefits from belonging to a collective
> bargaining unit and it is reasonable to have employees pay for them.

Say I own a house in a town.  You come along and decide that every house
in town needs a new roof.  After consulting every homeowner in town, you
find that 56% of them would like you to put up a new roof for a certain
price.  So you put new roofs on every house in town and charge me for
mine, even though I was part of the 44% who wanted you to just go away.

This is considered wrong in our society because my house is mine, and
I decide to do with it.

We have to start thinking of labour in the same way.  My labour is mine,
and I should be able to sell it for whatever terms I find agreeable.
If you negotiate for my colleagues and that benefits me, I should not
have to join your club or pay you off because I did not ask you to do
any such.


> >> If they don't like the union's policies, they are always free to
> >> run for elected office and change the union policies.
> >
> >If you are not free to 'not join' then you are not free.
> 
> You are free not to join.  You are not free not to pay.

Not so.  Closed shops, which B.C. legislation promotes, prevent non-unionized
workers from selling their labour.  This is wrong.
> 
> >In B.C. many workers, including me, are not free.


MSK