Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaliayev
I have, amusingly, watched internet Libertarians who support corporate personhood then slam unions because they are using "collective bargaining" to get their way.
No joke. Apparently when management do it, it's different.
|
I guess if people say "corporate personhood" enough times, it makes it true? Again, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled. They made a very narrow ruling on free speech, and when and how it can be limited by federal law. In this case, they ruled that if 1 person has the right to speech, 100 people together as an organization also have that right.
I have no objection to collective bargaining. The right to negotiate for salary, the right to refuse to work for less than a certain wage, those are deeply important, fundamental rights in a capitalist marketplace.
I object very strongly to the protected status that unions have under our current system. They are allowed to form mandatory local monopolies over a company's labor force, and then use that monopoly to void the employers right to hire workers at a wage determined by the labor market.
If we are going to preserve the fundmental right to not
work unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the worker, then we must also preserve the fundamental right not to
hire unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the employer. It is unfair to enter negotiations where the rights of one side enjoy protected status under the law and the rights of the other do not.