Right to Work Laws

[Howard509]

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.

Don't you see that union bosses in this country care little for the rank and file?

[Francois Tremblay]

relying on the state... is acceptable to anarchists

You are a troll. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Guest]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with exploiting unions.

What you're saying, then, is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with exploiting workers. So your opposition to capitalism must be based on something else.

You're also saying there's absolutely nothing wrong with one group of workers exploiting another group of workers. So your opposition to the state must not include the fact that states act like rival gangs to get a bigger cut of the action and that this creates labor aristocracies among workers under the dominant states, at the expense of those under the subservient states.

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.

Don't you see that union bosses in this country 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. ... Most unions are filled with reactionaries. The whole fucking society is reactionary. ... 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.

relying on the state to enforced closed shops is acceptable to anarchists because workers would create the same situation without a state.

You are a troll. Welcome to my ignore list.

As you wish, but without those laws workers would be even more at the mercy of capital. Workers are at a decided disadvantage in the face of the power of capital to manipulate the state against them. As long as those forces are at play against worker control, there's nothing inconsistent in recognizing that some state activities are more harmful than others. It would be suicidal to advocate the reversal of state concessions to worker struggles, and completely antithetical to the anarchist advocacy of worker control. If you think it is just as urgent that we dismantle laws fought for by workers, as it is that we dismantle those that benefit capital, then I suppose I'm glad to be on your list.

[AndyMalroes]

I like you guest, why don't you sign up?

[Noleaders]

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.

I live in capitalism, i am not a capitalist. The thuggery of the state i live under may have allowed some capitalists to accumulate vast amounts of capital with the benefits eventually trickling down to everyone else. However assuming this thuggery went away, we had a worker controlled world and this source of ill gotten capital stopped i dont think that would be a huge reduction in our standards of living because even if we had less capital as a nation the average person would own capital and get the benefits directly instead of the trickle down effect.

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."

By a blind stroke of luck I happen to live in a country with enough capital to make my 8 hours of work more productive. Making my portion smaller doesnt neccessarily make the other guy's bigger, just like making his portion bigger doesnt have to make mine smaller. What matters is that they are able to make their labour more productive and they get to keep a just reward for their labour, it has absolutely nothing to do with me unless as a temporary measure we gave them loads of free capital but that still doesnt mean we can only gain at their expense.

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.

I dont think wealth creation happens magically and im well aware that resources and labour are under finite supply, however finite doesnt mean inelastic. By "give them the means to create their own wealth" i meant stop exploiting them, give them loads of capital for free or on non interest bearing loans (or some similar scheme) and then leave them alone (by which i mean dont start exploiting them again, not ignore them) i never said this would be an instantanous thing. Sure some boats will get lowered as others are raised if their previous hight was built on exploitation however are all the people in the west in the same boat? I disagree.

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.

Privilege as in unearned gain at the expense of others? Sure, of course that would have to disappear. But i never mentioned anything about maintaining privilege unless by privilege you mean wealth but then whats wrong with someone gaining while no one looses?

[Guest]

All I know is that I was fired in a "Right to Work" state because the manager of the business I worked for "did not like me" for personal reasons. This is perfectly legal in a "right to work" state.

Fuck that.

[tap]

JMO, Right-to-Work laws are more added laws and regulation...that would usually be a no-no from a minarchist or anarchist position.

Additionally, the RTW laws also impose and force itself onto businesses, as banning union-shop agreements would then ban the companies right to choose!