Right to Work Laws

[Guest]

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?

I'm pro-worker. That means I'm anti-scab. Scabs are not "workers" in a strike situation. The workers are striking. Trying to improve their conditions. The scabs are betraying the striking workers. Trying to take those jobs at lower wages. Owners support right-to-work because they support scabs. Because they want to pay lower wages.

You're talking about closed shops. That's different. If a state has closed shop laws and workers don't want it, then I don't want it. But since you're a scholar you must know that closed shop laws are the result of worker struggle. If workers in a closed shop resent union dues, they should agitate their fellow workers. Try to get others to agree. If the majority agrees then they can petition the state. Sad but that's the world we live in. We have to deal with the state to convince them to point their guns in some other direction. But if the majority wants unions, the selfish minority who wants to avoid dues even though it means a loss of benefits for the majority, will have to accept it. If we had worker control, you couldn't avoid majority rule. Worker control doesn't mean each individual worker gets to run the shop his way. It means workers unionize and make collective decisions. And the minority has to accept it if they want to work in that worker controlled shop. I have no sympathy for puffed up individualists who want the power to block collective actions.

[Yarrow]

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?

seriously. i think the people who talk like that are those who have been taught to use the most appropriate words from their vocabulary. personally i can't believe you feel the need to swear about this. i appreciate there IS a benefit in conversing in your listeners' lexicon (see SNAFU, or the manic street preachers' writing class war songs dense with political jargon), but its' really a case of either/or. people talk differently.

on the subject of closed shop laws, it's unfortunately one of those situations where idealism and pragmatism cross over in an unfulfilling way. I, for one, think unions should be voluntary and run by the company- but in our present society, that's a pipe dream.

[Zazaban]

I use the word 'one' is that context frequently, and I'm certainly not attempting to lord it over people. Don't be so sensitive, jesus christ.

[AndyMalroes]

OK whatever, I don't give a fuck anyway. It was just an observation.

[Howard509]

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 have four years experience in journalistic writing. On this forum, however, I write how I talk most of the time. I didn't make the post in question because I was trying to sound more educated than you.

[Howard509]

You're talking about closed shops. That's different. If a state has closed shop laws and workers don't want it, then I don't want it. But since you're a scholar you must know that closed shop laws are the result of worker struggle. If workers in a closed shop resent union dues, they should agitate their fellow workers. Try to get others to agree. If the majority agrees then they can petition the state. Sad but that's the world we live in. We have to deal with the state to convince them to point their guns in some other direction. But if the majority wants unions, the selfish minority who wants to avoid dues even though it means a loss of benefits for the majority, will have to accept it. If we had worker control, you couldn't avoid majority rule. Worker control doesn't mean each individual worker gets to run the shop his way. It means workers unionize and make collective decisions. And the minority has to accept it if they want to work in that worker controlled shop. I have no sympathy for puffed up individualists who want the power to block collective actions.

In the real world, unions like the AFL-CIO are corrupt institutions that care little for the rank and file. Workers support right to work laws when they feel their interests aren't being represented.

[Zazaban]

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 have four years experience in journalistic writing. On this forum, however, I write how I talk most of the time. I didn't make the post in question because I was trying to sound more educated than you.

You very clearly do believe you're more educated than everybody else here, and you think that somehow makes you superior.

[Yarrow]

personally i don't understand where you get that vibe, zaz. but then i'm not that well educated

[Guest]

In the real world, unions like the AFL-CIO are corrupt institutions that care little for the rank and file.

I've worked in a closed shop. AFL-CIO. Participated in meetings. Never felt unheard. It's a lie that they "care little for the rank and file." I prefer the international industrial approach, like the IWW, because it's less prone to contradiction. But in a worker controlled society those distinctions will be moot. You're going to have what amount to closed shops because workers are going to be running the shop by collective decision making. Not bargaining. No bosses to bargain with. If you're a worker in a shop, you're a "union" member whether you like it or not, because the whole society is a union of workers. No right-to-scab laws. Don't like the collective decisions of the shop? Go independent. Closed shop laws approximate that situation, roughly, within the existing state system. I have little time for anarchists who oppose state action on principle even when it approximates, maybe poorly, how the situation would be without a state. Supporting right-to-scab laws is appealing to an authority to force the workers in a shop to allow free-riders.

Workers support right to work laws when they feel their interests aren't being represented.

Or when they're under the influence of right-wing conservatism. Listen to Rush Limbaugh at the office or on the shop floor. Most unions are filled with reactionaries. The whole fucking society is reactionary. Western workers are a labor aristocracy. The global product is about $70 trillion. There's about 7 billion people. Do the math. Adjust for cost of living. If you're pulling down more than that, ask yourself how. Is it because you're a superior species than a dirt farmer in sub-Saharan Africa? No? Then is it because you work however many thousands of times harder, or faster? No? Then is it because you're producing more important goods? Can that even be measured? No? Then is it because you benefit from the thuggery of the state you live under? Yes, that sounds right. And most unions support that reactionary shit. If we had a worker controlled planet, you and I would be in for a rude awakening. No more living like aristocrats. But that other guy, for him it would be a major windfall. He'd feel like a king or a god or something, even on a fraction of what we currently enjoy. And there's a lot more of him than us. And they're just as good and important as us. And if you don't support your own relative downsizing so that they can get the upgrade they're due, then you're my enemy and I hope you don't survive the revolution. You'll probably be opposing it anyway, so maybe I'll get to do the honors. But even though unions are that way, we still have to support them if we want a worker controlled society. Because they're all we've got at present. When the world hands you lemons, make lemonade. We should agitate within unions to fuck off with the xenophobia. The closer we get to internationalism, the less contradictory unions will be.

[Noleaders]

If we had a worker controlled planet, you and I would be in for a rude awakening. No more living like aristocrats. But that other guy, for him it would be a major windfall.

I grant the latter, but where did you get the former from? Wealth can be created as well as distributed. The reason poor countries are poor is (for a myriad of reasons) they have much less capital than us, i dont see why the average western person would have to suffer that huge a reduction in their own lifestyle for that problem to be fixed. What is needed isnt to give them all our wealth but to give them the means to create their own wealth.

[Howard509]

Freedom of association and freedom from theft are fundamental rights which right to work laws are intended to protect. Workers who see the corruption within their unions and choose to opt out are not "scabs." They are just free thinking workers who see that their interests aren't being represented. Despite 50% of union workers voting Republican, unions insist on donating to Democratic politicians, rather than using it to organize and help workers.

[Zazaban]

If we had a worker controlled planet, you and I would be in for a rude awakening. No more living like aristocrats. But that other guy, for him it would be a major windfall.

I grant the latter, but where did you get the former from? Wealth can be created as well as distributed. The reason poor countries are poor is (for a myriad of reasons) they have much less capital than us, i dont see why the average western person would have to suffer that huge a reduction in their own lifestyle for that problem to be fixed. What is needed isnt to give them all our wealth but to give them the means to create their own wealth.

Agreed. The current organization of the world is so inefficient, everybody's standard of living is probably going to go up in anarchy. Except maybe wealthy CEOs and that, though that depends how to define 'standard of living'. I understand most extremely rich people are pretty miserable.

[Guest]

If we had a worker controlled planet, you and I would be in for a rude awakening. No more living like aristocrats. But that other guy, for him it would be a major windfall.

I grant the latter, but where did you get the former from? Wealth can be created as well as distributed. The reason poor countries are poor is (for a myriad of reasons) they have much less capital than us, i dont see why the average western person would have to suffer that huge a reduction in their own lifestyle for that problem to be fixed. What is needed isnt to give them all our wealth but to give them the means to create their own wealth.

You ignored the point. You're operating under the assumption that "your wealth" accurately represents your contribution. It doesn't. It's inflated by the thuggery of the state you live under. The global product is X. The population is Y. Now tell me how it is that your portion of X is more than the other guy's, without making yourself sound like a member of Stormfront, and without saying "the economy is not a zero-sum game."

Sure, it would be nice if we could just raise the other boats without lowering ours. But you can't do that without maintaining the injustice that made ours higher in the first place. You seem to think wealth creation happens magically. Wealth is created by labor acting on resources, both of which are under finite supply.

The bottom line is that if you want to somehow maintain your privilege, then you're not an anarchist. That would be true even if your privilege didn't derive from the state.

[Guest]

Freedom of association and freedom from theft are a fundamental rights which right to work laws are intended to protect. Workers who see the corruption within their unions and choose to opt out are not "scabs." They are just free thinking workers who see that their interests aren't being represented. Despite 50% of unions workers voting Republican, unions insist on donating to Democratic politicians, rather than using it to organize and help workers.

Why do you think pro-union workers hate right-to-work supporters? Because they still benefit from the efforts of unions! They're freeriders. They want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to opt out of a union shop, go independent, just like you'd have to do in a worker controlled society. You're relying on the state to force what could never be forced without one. On the other hand, relying on the state to enforced closed shops is acceptable to anarchists because workers would create the same situation without a state.

[Francois Tremblay]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with exploiting unions.