[wharvle]

The party’s not unrelated.

[throwawa14223]

Yes, in both cases.

[wharvle]

Are boards of directors unrelated parties you’re forced to associate with if you don’t want to severely limit your employment options?

[throwawa14223]

The people the owners of the company have selected to run the company on their behalf are directly related to a company. I fail to see the similarity.

[wharvle]

It’s a legally required body for many companies. It’s being imposed by law. Same as required unions would be.

[throwawa14223]

I've never been forced to become a member of a corporate board. This proposal however is that I be required to join a union. That is the material difference.

[wharvle]

True. You’re merely forced to be subject to their decisions, made on behalf of and in the interest of people who aren’t you.

[edit] I’m getting the sense that if we just restructure this so the union exists and does normal union stuff but you don’t have to “be a member” (but do have to abide by its decisions or else leave, as with a board) you’d be ok with it? Like it’s mainly a semantic problem?