Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Admittedly, this is one of the issues on which I am most extreme, but...
I don't understand why this shouldn't be legal. Why shouldn't a business owner be able to decide that he doesn't want a union involved with his business? Why shouldn't he be able to prefer those employees ambivalent or hostile to union representation?
It'll probably come down to fundamental value disagreements on how to prioritize property rights and employment rights - the latter of which I don't hold existent - so this might be a pointless discussion right from the start... but as common and accepted as it is, it's just completely foreign to me that we should bar a business owner from this level of self-autonomy.
|
Here's my view: I wouldn't have a problem if people decided to be completely laissez faire with regards to unions and business. The problem is that in American history, we have had the state cracking down on unions even as it deregulated industries.
That is the thing: the same people who deregulated industries and stopped enforcing much of the Sherman anti-trust act on business were the same who were quick to use the Sherman anti-trust act to bust unions.
In other words, if you think that the state should butt out and not interfere when employers fire people for being in unions and do their best to undermine them, then you should also think that in the instances where unions are strong enough to hold their own the state shouldn't come in busting unions, dissolving contracts, and o on either.