Scott Walker's crusade continues

[giblets]

Then they should provide something the worker is willing to pay for rather than depend on the State forcing them to do so.

Yes... they should provide a non-excludable good that free riders are willing to pay for. Good thinking.

[Felch]

No. Wanting people to have something better doesn't mean wanting to have something better for free or at another's cost. Another fine product of No Child Left Behind, I see.

If they want all workers to receive better conditions, then they should have no problem with free riders. Obviously it's not true, but kentonio said something ridiculous, I pointed it out, and here you are making more personal attacks. Not even one that makes sense, given that I'm a bit old to have been a product of NCLB. MtG showing how classy he is

[DinoDoc]

Yes... they should provide a non-excludable good that free riders are willing to pay for. Good thinking.

Polling shows approximately a quarter of Michigan's government employees would opt out of unions under a right-to-work law. Clearly they aren't feeling well served by the union.

[giblets]

If they want all workers to receive better conditions, then they should have no problem with free riders. Obviously it's not true, but kentonio said something ridiculous, I pointed it out, and here you are making more personal attacks. Not even one that makes sense, given that I'm a bit old to have been a product of NCLB. MtG showing how classy he is

If the decision to free ride would make it harder for their organization to stay afloat and advocate better conditions why would they have no problem with free riders?

[Felch]

I'm waiting for kentonio to explain that. He's the one who said:

Unions don't want their members to get better conditions than other workers, they want all workers to receive better conditions.

As if unions were purely altruistic organizations that weren't advocating for special treatment for their members.

[giblets]

I'm waiting for kentonio to explain that. He's the one who said:

Unions don't want their members to get better conditions than other workers, they want all workers to receive better conditions.

Maybe he means that they want all people in union workplaces or industries to get better conditions. Obviously true because if they agreed to let employers pay non-union workers less the union workers would gradually get replaced.

Of course it's possible they want all workers to get better conditions and that's why they support Democrats.

[Felch]

No **** it makes no sense. But feel free to join MtG in jumping down my throat for pointing it out.

[giblets]

No **** it makes no sense. But feel free to join MtG in jumping down my throat for pointing it out.

I changed my mind and decided one possible interpretation makes sense.

[Felch]

So you agree that unions have no problem with free riders?

[giblets]

So you agree that unions have no problem with free riders?

Of course they do. It's harder for unions to survive, operate and fulfill their mission if some people are free riding. They're not complaining if some people can free ride off of their support for Democratic candidates however.

[Felch]

Remember, if unions are supposed to change working conditions through legislation, then anybody who didn't chip in on the lobbying bills is a free rider.

[Felch]

Oh, I get it now. Unions want union membership to be mandatory.

[giblets]

Oh, I get it now. Unions want union membership to be mandatory.

If a majority of the workers at a workplace support forming a union, they don't want anyone to free ride off of the wages and working conditions the union bargains for.

[Felch]

But we've moved beyond collective bargaining, to politics. For unions to be politically effective, they have to force everybody they can to join unions. Any worker who doesn't join is a traitor to the working class, or as MtG would put it, a Republican troll.

[giblets]

Yes. Unions are trying to take over the world. It's what they do every day. Excellent observation.