Last week, the United Auto Workers reached a deal with Stellantis to re-open an idled Belvidere Assembly Plant. "We made them invest," said transformational UAW President Shawn Fain.
Sure, government should step in and require union formation. Either the employees join an existing union or are able to form their own, without any obstruction from the company. There is no case where the employees are better off without a union. It’s like going to court without a lawyer. Companies telling you, you don’t need a union is like a prosecutor telling a defendant they don’t need legal defense. Also, there is a collective element, the existence of non-unionized employees hurts the power of unions and unionized employees.
I don’t see how that question is relevant. In a democracy, the state should theoretically be incentivized to do what is best for its constituents, since its constituents are mostly workers, I would think mandatory unionization would be a no brainer. In practice, power in our democracies largely mirrors the power structure of our economy with capitalists capable of using their capital to control the government in the same way they use it to control workers by denying them the full benefit of what they produce. It’s how you get workers on food stamps while the CEO is worth billions.
What matters is workers being able to benefit from the fruits of their labor, rather than shareholders and management exclusively. Today, you can spend 40 years of your life building a company as an employee and be thrown to the curb without a cent of equity. Workers, despite dedicating their lives to the company, have no rights or recourse. Unions help change that and give workers power. The state should represent the best interests of the public and serve as a counter-balance to protect the public interest from the power and narrow-mindedness of private interest.
I am asking you to consider, through substantive inquiry, how the ideal you promote is most likely to be achieved.
Historically, has the state supported the interests of the working class for becoming organized, or has it rather tended to support the interests of business?
If the state has supported the interests of workers, then would it not follow that the state already provides the organization needed for advancement of the working class, such that unions would be unnecessary?
I mean hasn’t it supported the interests of both to some degree, but only when the working class forced it. As a rule, it tends to support business because that is where wealth is concentrated and influence follows. The most substantial gains in worker rights has always been through unions, strikes, civil disobedience, etc. acting as a catalyst for politicians to prioritize the interests of workers over business. In other words, workers need unions to be more powerful than business.
Where are you trying to go though with your questions? I still think private interest serves a role in organizing society for certain important tasks by providing an incentive structure that the government can’t. That said, the government should heavily regulate private interest so it mostly serves the best interest of the public.
You seem to be suggesting that workers should form unions, such that, when the working class develops enough power, it should use the power to press the state to force workers to form unions.
An essential issue seems to be of circularity.
A further quite severe doubt for me is the meaningfulness of organization among workers who have not sought organization. Unions require active participation from members who believe that being organized is valuable and who conceive of themselves as agents of their own liberation.
Sure, government should step in and require union formation. Either the employees join an existing union or are able to form their own, without any obstruction from the company. There is no case where the employees are better off without a union. It’s like going to court without a lawyer. Companies telling you, you don’t need a union is like a prosecutor telling a defendant they don’t need legal defense. Also, there is a collective element, the existence of non-unionized employees hurts the power of unions and unionized employees.
Do you know of any historic precedent for the state being so enthusiastic about worker organization?
I don’t see how that question is relevant. In a democracy, the state should theoretically be incentivized to do what is best for its constituents, since its constituents are mostly workers, I would think mandatory unionization would be a no brainer. In practice, power in our democracies largely mirrors the power structure of our economy with capitalists capable of using their capital to control the government in the same way they use it to control workers by denying them the full benefit of what they produce. It’s how you get workers on food stamps while the CEO is worth billions.
What matters is workers being able to benefit from the fruits of their labor, rather than shareholders and management exclusively. Today, you can spend 40 years of your life building a company as an employee and be thrown to the curb without a cent of equity. Workers, despite dedicating their lives to the company, have no rights or recourse. Unions help change that and give workers power. The state should represent the best interests of the public and serve as a counter-balance to protect the public interest from the power and narrow-mindedness of private interest.
I am asking you to consider, through substantive inquiry, how the ideal you promote is most likely to be achieved.
Historically, has the state supported the interests of the working class for becoming organized, or has it rather tended to support the interests of business?
If the state has supported the interests of workers, then would it not follow that the state already provides the organization needed for advancement of the working class, such that unions would be unnecessary?
I mean hasn’t it supported the interests of both to some degree, but only when the working class forced it. As a rule, it tends to support business because that is where wealth is concentrated and influence follows. The most substantial gains in worker rights has always been through unions, strikes, civil disobedience, etc. acting as a catalyst for politicians to prioritize the interests of workers over business. In other words, workers need unions to be more powerful than business.
Where are you trying to go though with your questions? I still think private interest serves a role in organizing society for certain important tasks by providing an incentive structure that the government can’t. That said, the government should heavily regulate private interest so it mostly serves the best interest of the public.
You seem to be suggesting that workers should form unions, such that, when the working class develops enough power, it should use the power to press the state to force workers to form unions.
An essential issue seems to be of circularity.
A further quite severe doubt for me is the meaningfulness of organization among workers who have not sought organization. Unions require active participation from members who believe that being organized is valuable and who conceive of themselves as agents of their own liberation.