• @AnUnusualRelic
    link
    31 year ago

    Required union membership is a bit weird though. It can lead to so much abuse that it’s not really a rational thing.

    There ought to be several unions that have nothing to do with the specifics of one particular industry, but everything with workers rights.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      Not having a union typically leads to more abuse, no? Like, I’m not sure what union abuse looks like?

      • @AnUnusualRelic
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        Yes, not having a union can lead to more abuse.

        However having a mandatory union can lead to abuse too. Because it gives all the power to the union. You never want to give all the power to one entity. This basically creates a workplace mafia.

        What you want in the workspace is to have several unions that can work together (or not). The more unions, the better (because it’s easy to divide two unions, but harder to split seven).

        Those unions ought to federate workers from widely different industries, so that they can carry the weight of many voices technically and politically.

        Ideally, there ought to be some kind of legal infrastructure for the corporations and the unions and representative bodies of the workforce to periodically meet and update their generic contract.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Yeah, thats true, you want a union for each craft, who can understand and work for the benifit of those people. One union per company isn’t too hot.

          Given the most ideal situation tho, were the proper union distribution is in place, should union dues be mandatory? Thats the question at the heart of “right to work”.

          the unions and representative bodies of the workforce

          I’m puzzled by this, tho. Whats a representative body of the workforce?