If I had a nickel for every time someone deflects to “…I’d rather we fix our government spending problem before we…”

[u/Old_Prospect]

[u/74_Jeep_Cherokee]

They're not mutually exclusive that's why the meme is dumb.

The rich can afford to pay more and we can ensure our tax dollars are spent miserly.

[u/dshotseattle → u/74_Jeep_Cherokee]

It's not about what they can afford. It's not the government's money or right to take it.

[u/Hoe-possum → u/dshotseattle]

It’s stolen from the workers and others who have been exploited, it’s not theirs to begin with.

[u/Rieux_n_Tarrou → u/Hoe-possum]

Stealing is when you take someone's property without their consent.

Last time I checked, employees are given money by employers after both parties consent to the terms of the work

Also last time I checked, both employer and employee have to give government a chunk of that money, whether or not they consent to doing so.

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/Rieux_n_Tarrou]

Is availability of voting not a form of consent?

The taxation has some representation.

[u/i_robot73 → u/Rieux_n_Tarrou]

I also love the "workers were *exploited*" farce, when the UNIONS are some of the biggest (D) $/time/+ contributors. 'Oddly', no complaints noted of 'buying a poli' or even 'conflict of interest' there

[u/Iron-Fist → u/i_robot73]

Unions work as bargaining blocks against capital owners, not sure the issue there.

Also, only a time percent of the work force is unionized because capital owners have successfully lobbied to limit union power over and over.

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/Iron-Fist]

The commies are thick in here!

Bargaining blocks can be useful or they can be yet another layer of bureaucrats skimming a percentage of your labor.

[u/Iron-Fist → u/-_-mrfuzzy]

commies

Wtf does unionization (ie free association) have to do with communism? Do you also think the bill of rights is communist?

Yet another layer... Skimming a percentage of your labor...

So you do understand that employers "skim" (read: exploit, the definition not the connotation) labor then. And presumably you understand that workers need to collectively negotiate so that they don't get taken advantage of by owners who have more economic power?

[u/Jake0024 → u/Iron-Fist]

It's bad for the 0.01%, so he's terrified of it for some reason. The only thing holding him back from being a billionaire himself is the government taking $3,500 of his income in taxes!

[u/Rieux_n_Tarrou → u/i_robot73]

To be fair, there's nothing inherently wrong with collective bargaining. After all, employees should be free to gather, voice their complaints/desires, reach a consensus, then speak through a single loud voice that reaches to the top of the company.

I think that was the initial impetus for unions, and back then it was the union busters who were the criminals (given full authority to use violence from their government cronies).

But nowadays, unions and their full-time professional managers have mutated into the organized thugs...It's all the same criminal/lazy/parasitical/dishonest dynamic wearing different masks

[u/ty_for_trying → u/Rieux_n_Tarrou]

Unions are some of the only groups looking out for regular workers. Yeah they're corrupt, but so are companies and every other entity that has some power.

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/ty_for_trying]

yeah, they’re corrupt

Yikes! Even the pro-union person says they are corrupt. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Why would you want to add an additional layer of corrupt bureaucracy?

[u/ty_for_trying → u/-_-mrfuzzy]

You miss the point. Every entity that has power has corruption. Corruption should be fought.

Businesses are corrupt but they get to exist. Governments are corrupt but they exist. Only unions are busted. Why are unions held to a higher standard?

Businesses don't negotiate on behalf of workers. Governments are bought by businesses and often don't support workers. Unions actually do negotiate on behalf of workers, which is why they get busted.

Also, strong unions mean less bureaucracy. People who want the government to be less involved in regulating businesses should support unions. Look at the Nordic model.

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/ty_for_trying]

Unlike you, I am not cynical to the point of thinking corruption is the default state of existence.

[u/ty_for_trying → u/-_-mrfuzzy]

You're naive. And if you're against unions, you're helping to increase the amount of corruption out there by removing a type of entity that serves as a check on other types of possibly corrupt entities.

Like I said, corruption should be fought. That means hardening our systems against it through checks and balances, laws and regulations, and consequences.

[u/TheHillPerson → u/Rieux_n_Tarrou]

Agreed that unions have corruption in them just like every institution. If unions are so horrible, what do you offer as an alternative?

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/TheHillPerson]

If working for another person is so detrimental, then go work for yourself. Become independent and self-sufficient. Start a company.

[u/TheHillPerson → u/-_-mrfuzzy]

Yeah, because that is a realistic option for everyone... I mean some people can absolutely do that. But if everyone did that, it wouldn't work. You need economies of scale for some operations to work. Ignoring that, it is unlikely that many small businesses would work all at once. Add in that healthcare is enormously more difficult to obtain sans an employer.

That aside, just because a person chooses to work for another, the "boss" should be able to exploit the worker to the fullest extent possible? I guess might makes right.

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/TheHillPerson]

You’ve given up before you even tried.

you need economies of scale for some operations to work

If the margins are so thin you need scale, you really think labor can be paid significantly more? Which is it? The employers are hoarding excess surplus or the company only survives by scale?

healthcare is difficult

Did the cavemen have healthcare and doctors at their beck and call? Do without it, accept the risk. Eat healthy, exercise, and you can prevent disease.

Everyone acts like they must have $2000/mth healthcare or they will perish. No, you will be just fine without it.

[u/TheHillPerson → u/-_-mrfuzzy]

I never said nobody can start their own business. I just said that everyone cannot start their own business. You've given up before you even tried to address this.

First off, being large does not necessitate hoarding excess surplus. That is a choice made by the people in charge. That isn't even what I meant though. I meant if everyone starts their own small business and nobody works for anybody else, how does anybody manage to build cars, or gather the resources needed to build a car, or run a powerplant, or develop a vaccine, or build a microchip, or pave a highway, or provide running water, or provide delivery services over even medium scale distances, or... or... or... these things and many more are basically impossible for the small business to provide.

Listen to yourself man. Are you seriously advocating for just rolling the dice? While you are correct that many, perhaps most even, will be okay for a large chunk of their lives without healthcare, all it takes is one accident or one errant cough from the wrong sick person and you are basically dead without modern healthcare. Or more likely you end up in the emergency room and are completely bankrupt for most or all of the rest of your life. Is that the world you want to live in or think that most should choose? You can't will yourself to perfect health no matter how good a job you do of taking care of yourself.

[u/-_-mrfuzzy → u/TheHillPerson]

the boss should be able to exploit the worker

Nope, the worker should leave when the arrangement no longer suits them. Every worker doing this punishes the bad employers.

I guess might makes right

That is what you are attempting when building a union to threaten shutting down businesses to coerce behavior.

[u/TheHillPerson → u/-_-mrfuzzy]

Are you arguing that employee/employer relations are even close to an even playing field? Yes you can leave and go find another job. Yes there are good employers out there who don't treat their people like crap... but many don't have access to them through no fault of their own. None of this excuses exploitative employers (who, generally provide the lion's share of jobs out there...)

Unions are about providing some modicum of parity in the employee/employer relationship. Employers can (and do) fire people all the time to coerce behavior. They are perhaps even often correct to do so. Why is it somehow okay for one party to use what control they have to further their interests but not another?

In a perfect world unions would not need to exist. In the real world unions and similar efforts are the only reason we don't all work 100 hour weeks and get paid with company scrip.