[cwhiz]

I disagree. It should be a free market. If the employees don’t like their treatment they should leave and take a different job. I am sure there is a UAW job out there to be had.

The most likely outcome from this is that Tesla moves more and more production out of a California and into a more business friendly state, such as Texas.

[ausbah]

calling it a free market is laughable naive. the market is lopsided in favor of businesses because many laws at the state and federal are explicitly pro-business and anti-union; see "right to work laws", the 1947 Taft-Harley act, etc. - especially over the past 20 years

and saying workers should just go and join a union backed job is even sillier when <15% of all full time workers are apart of a union [1]

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

[lukejduncan]

Right to work is pro employee. If unions want membership they shouldn’t be able to coerce it. They should have to earn it and compete for it. If a union can’t survive based on voluntary membership then that tells you something.

[ausbah]

it is the state infringing in the market on the side of business and capital by restricting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers

workers are less well off but it's ok because "individualism"

[lukejduncan]

No one is being restricted from bargaining collectively. They’re just being given the choice to opt out. Unions just get upset because they lose their monopoly status to police workers voices who disagree with their position and politics.

[cwhiz]

Right to work is only anti union because it allows employees to choose whether or not to join a union. Forcing an employee to join a union is absolutely not pro-employee.

[CryptoPunk]

Right to work is not pro-business. It simply reduces some of the extra-contractual powers that labor laws give unions.

These laws are violating the right of business to freely contract, while reducing the opportunity for those who don't have unionized jobs to compete for those jobs. So Right to Work is anti-'exploitation of businesses and outside workers'.

[joppy]

So in a "free" market, one side has all the bargaining power and the other side has none of it? What does a free market mean to you?

[cwhiz]

It means the employees can choose to leave and choose whether they want to join a union.

[whimsicalism]

In the free market, should businesses not be able to freely agree to a contract? Most anti-union laws limit the types of contracts private actors are able to voluntarily consent to, which seems less of a "free market."

[jmjanzen]

Spreading democracy to the workforce does not make the market less "free." It just makes it easier to manipulate by the few.

[cwhiz]

Democracy in the workforce would be giving employees an option to join a union, or not.

[anoncake]

No, that is not democracy. Democratic decisions, by definition, are made by multiple people together.

[cwhiz]

What you’re describing is much closer to tyranny.

[anoncake]

The hell? Any decisions that involve more than one person involve tyranny?

[nybble41]

Any situation where one group is forced to go along with what another group wants is tyranny, regardless of the sizes of the groups. When the first group is large and the second group is small you have an oligopoly or dictatorship. When the reverse is true you have tyranny of the majority, which isn't much of an improvement.

The democratic ideal is people coming together voluntarily to work toward their common interests, with no one being forced to participate against their will. The right to secede is key—it's not a legitimate democracy if you aren't allowed to leave.

[tacitusarc]

The tyranny of the majority is perhaps the reference?

[joshuamorton]

Or Alabama? Which would never get a union...

Unions are an aspect of a free market. They're an organization of individuals with a common goal in exactly the same way corporations are.

[missedthecue]

Unions are anti-free market. They are monopoly cartels protected by the federal government. If people who sell peanut butter joined together to sell their products at a higher price, the DOJ would bust them up. If people who sell labor join together to do the same type of rent seeking, congress sets up the NLRB to protect them.

[joshuamorton]

A company is, last I checked, free to reject the union entirely and fire everyone (if they strike).

Not to mention your argument should be that cartels should be legal, not that unions should not be.

[missedthecue]

You may want to check again. A company cannot refuse to bargain with the union, and strikers cannot be fired while on strike.

[joshuamorton]

They can however be replaced, in which case the company doesn't need to rehire the striking workers. Potato/potato.

That's not true if the company is in violation of an existing contract though, then the company is breaking the law and must rehire everyone, but I'll reiterate: they're breaking the law to begin with.

[Ericson2314]

This free market you speak of is in fact fairly sensitive to initial conditions, and will never reconcile the interests of the rich and poor on its own.

[jellicle]

I'm glad to hear you are calling for employees to be able to freely form a union and strike (which employees are mostly banned from doing today).

[kevinmchugh]

The NLRB has jurisdiction in Texas

[URSpider94]

Where, exactly, are people who live in the SF Bay Area going to find a UAW job?