JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>
>>>>> [Something about not wishing to be a trade union member.]
>
>>>>>>>>>> If you object so strongly to unions then why did you go into
>>>>>>>>>> such an industry, and stay there? Why not find a different
>>>>>>>>>> employer or go self-employed?
>
>>>>>>>>> Why should he?
>>>>>>>>> What if the industry in which he works is something for which
>>>>>>>>> he has a particular talent and a particular attraction?
>>>>>>>>> Do the "rights" of trade unions (or of trade union employees
>>>>>>>>> or members) supervene?
>>>>>>>>> If so, why?
>
>>>>>>>> There will have been a majority vote by the workforce in favour
>>>>>>>> of having a union represent them, it's called democracy. I
>>>>>>>> thought you were in favour of democracy.
>
>>>>>>> How can a vote by a body* of which one is/was a not a member
>>>>>>> (and maybe does not wish to be a member - nor even be allowed
>>>>>>> to be a member) be called "democratic"?
>
>>>>>> Can I suggest that you read what is written, rather than create
>>>>>> an argument based on the product of your very fertile
>>>>>> imagination.
>
>>>>> May (rather than "can") I suggest that you apply your mind to
>>>>> finding a justification for calling a vote "democratic" when
>>>>> people affected by it are not given the chance to vote (or, even
>>>>> if a vote is theoretically available it is only available
>>>>> congintent upon accepting a set of beliefs which the inddividual
>>>>> repudiates)?
>
>>>> One of us is obviously having a problem, perhaps you could help by
>>>> clarifying.
>>>> If the all employees of a company (wherein there is no union
>>>> representation) hold a ballot to determine the wishes of the
>>>> majority in respect of having such representation (and all accept
>>>> and stand by the majority vote) who amongst those affected by it
>>>> are not given the chance to vote?
>
>>> Whom does it bind (assuming it binds anybody at all), and for how
>>> long (how many years, decades, centuries, millennia)?
>
>> Until a similar vote decides that they no longer want representation.
>
> So assuming the vote binds every employee and every subsequent/future
> employee at the workplace (something you have not admitted), whether
> or not they agree with the outcome of the vote, the closed shop
> subsists for ever, or at least until the conscientious objectors can
> summon up the strength to force a new vote on the topic (to do which
> they have to sign up an organsiation whose aims and objectives may
> well disgust them)?
> That's disgraceful.
Closed shops are illegal and not under discussion.
> Even the vote for the government last time can only last until 2010
> maximum.
>>> Does it bind all new employees who were not there at the date of the
>>> vote (which was maybe in 1928)? If it does, how was the vote
>>> "democratic" if they never had a chance to take part?
>
>> They have the right to opt in or not, more so than in General
>> Elections.
>
>>> [BTW: You do know that closed shops are now illegal?]
>
>> Since that is not under discussion it's immaterial.
>
> Hardly. The CS was banned because it is incompatible with (real)
> human rights.
>>> And what of Mr Nonpolitical, one of the original workforce given a
>>> "chance" to vote, but whose position summed down to this:
>
>>> "I cannot commit to acceding to majority votes where they may lead
>>> to the unconrolled and uncontrollable disadvantage of my dependants. In
>>> particular, I cannot and will not accept the possibility of
>>> open-ended instructions (even on a "vote") to withdraw my labour
>>> and sacrifice my wages, merely because others wish to do so and wish for
>>> me to
>>> take part in their follies. Because I cannot undertake to abide by
>>> the rules of a trade union, I cannot
>>> join one. I therefore, in conscience, cannot take part in the vote
>>> as to whether or not the workplace shall become a closed shop.
>>> Given the above, I cannot accept compulsion as to membership of a union
>>> or any
>>> of the outcomes which may come my way. I will not join a union. I
>>> will not vote as to whether I
>>> should have the right not to join a union and I shall continue in my
>>> contracted employment".
>>> Ever heard of St Thomas More?
>
>> He was a lawyer, his successors run one of the most succeful closed
>> shops in the country.
>
> How about answering about the injuries done by the union to Mr
> Nonpolitical?
Kindly provide some examples of these "injuries".
