[9rx]

> Being in a union is not being an employer

Uh, you absolutely become an employer when you start employing people.

> anymore than calling a plumber is becoming a contractor.

Why would you become a contractor by calling a plumber? The plumber is the contractor in the equation (with some assumptions about the plumber's willingness to engage in a transaction).

> are you happy to accept your paycheck until every week until the severance pink slip lands on your desk? That is the alternative confronting knowledge workers today.

Accept a paycheck or start your own business (or retire, I suppose) are the only choices that have ever been present. What is the quip about knowledge workers intended to add?

[bonsai_spool]

> Why would you become a contractor by calling a plumber?

Exactly! I pay dues to a union. Those dues can go towards paying someone who knows how to run a union.

I pay money to a plumber who knows how to plumb things.

I'm neither an employer or a contractor in either setting.

[9rx]

> I pay dues to a union. Those dues can go towards paying someone who knows how to run a union.

Making you the employer. Dues are not a social or legal entity in and of themselves. There needs to be a human in the loop and in this hypothetical case that person is you.

> I'm neither an employer or a contractor in either setting.

Right. Under the common lexicon, the plumber is the contractor. Contractors are service providers, not service recipients. You, in this hypothetical case, are the one receiving a service from the plumber. Nobody would ever think you would be a contractor in this setting. It remains unclear why you keep repeating this obvious tautology.

And this is why tech people don't want to get into unions with other tech people. The unfortunate reality is that they let anyone become a tech worker.