The Two Laws of All Civilization?

[Anonymous]

Assuming there are no other coercive factors and that the worker's labor is scarce enough, the employers will likely give into their requests.

If the employer fires them all, it usually means that there is enough content labor to replace them. I see nothing wrong with this.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 

Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 

Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

You really really hate when someone agrees with you.  Why is that?

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large.  

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough.  

Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

You implied that the two contracts clashed, when they did not.  The union member in the original strawman above did not have to violate one agreement to honor the other, he simply had to end the ongoing agreement.

You really really hate when someone agrees with you.  Why is that?