Right to Work Laws

[Howard509]

Is there an anarchist position on right to work laws? Should workers be given the choice whether or not to pay union dues?

[Francois Tremblay]

It's a lot easier to see the trivial nature of your questions if you trim the context:

Is there an anarchist position on... laws? Should workers be given... choice?

[Howard509]

It's a lot easier to see the trivial nature of your questions if you trim the context:

Is there an anarchist position on... laws? Should workers be given... choice?

Do you know what right to work laws are?

[Francois Tremblay]

This is the sound of you missing the point.

[Yarrow]

i guess you're asking for voiced anarchist positions on right to work laws.

i know what you're saying about union fees though, it sucks when you're getting screwed over continually for someone else's negligence/ignorance.

[@4CDPEFCT]

Look at who's behind something for clues about where to stand on it. Right-to-work is an anti-labor thing pushed by business owners. So if you're pro-labor then you might not want to support that. It's just a clue, doesn't mean anything concrete. But it's a starting point. See if you can oppose right-to-work without contradicting anarchism. We've all got biases. The trick is to fit them together. If you can't make one fit, ditch it. But don't ditch it just because it somebody makes a plausible argument against it. Maybe you can counter their argument and save your bias without contradicting yourself. That's the art. I'm biased against right-to-work. Haven't thought about it from anarchism yet though. Hope I can keep that bias.

[Zazaban]

It's a lot easier to see the trivial nature of your questions if you trim the context:

Is there an anarchist position on... laws? Should workers be given... choice?

This.

[jack]

Is there an anarchist position on right to work laws? Should workers be given the choice whether or not to pay union dues?

Opposing it means tacit support for scabs.

[Howard509]

Right-to-work is an anti-labor thing pushed by business owners. So if you're pro-labor then you might not want to support that.

Historically, workers fed up with being mistreated by unions have been the driving force behind right to work laws. My final project in labor studies was on the right to work movement. While businesses have contributed financially to right to work organizations, one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this. Would an anarchist who believes in freedom of association and freedom from theft support compulsory union dues?

[AndyMalroes]

one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this.

Seriously, do you copy this shit from a text-book?

(I was talking about how it's worded)

[Howard509]

one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this.

Seriously, do you copy this shit from a text-book?

(I was talking about how it's worded)

No, I did my own research. There was no book assigned to me on this subject. Are you not used to educated people talking?

[Zazaban]

one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this.

Seriously, do you copy this shit from a text-book?

(I was talking about how it's worded)

No, I did my own research. There was no book assigned to me on this subject. Are you not used to educated people talking?

Wow, what an appalingly elitist thing to say.

[AndyMalroes]

Wow, what an appalingly elitist thing to say.

This.

[Yarrow]

one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this.

Seriously, do you copy this shit from a text-book?

(I was talking about how it's worded)

what an appalingly elitist thing to say.

'one' does have a valid meaning, it refers to all readers. if someone's going to call me on my correct use of english, they can be sure i'm going to get proud (and defensive too).

[AndyMalroes]

one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this.

Seriously, do you copy this shit from a text-book?

(I was talking about how it's worded)

what an appalingly elitist thing to say.

'one' does have a valid meaning, it refers to all readers. if someone's going to call me on my correct use of english, they can be sure i'm going to get proud (and defensive too).

sure it has a valid meaning, but who the fuck talks/writes like that unless they want to feel like they are more 'educated' than other people. I'm not saying we should bring everyone to the lowest common denominator, but seriously?