|
|
|
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
In the referenced article, writes:
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:25:16 GMT, (M J Carley)
>wrote:
>>So you believe that a company's workers do not have (or should not
>>have) the right to decide who will represent them in a negotiation?
>Of course not! If the buyer doesn't want to talk to some third party
>he shouldn't have to. When you are buying something, do you think
>some potential seller has some silly "right" to make you negotiate
>with someone else? Why should there be any negotiation unless the
>buyer agrees to it anyway? If I'm buying something and set a price,
>those unwilling to accept that price can go somewhere else. If I can't
>get what I want for that price, I might choose to do without or rasie
>it. I have no interest in some bozo telling me his client accepts the
>deal but demands something more.
If I, personally, enter a negotiation (to buy a house, say), I can
choose a lawyer to represent me; if I sell a house, I can choose an
estate agent to represent me. If my employer negotiates a contract, he
can choose a third party to represent him (my employer is a subscriber
to just such an organization). In each case, someone is hiring an
expert who knows the law and can get a good deal. Why is it
illegitimate for me, in my capacity as an employee, to choose someone
to represent me in such a negotation?
>If you want to join a union, fine! If you want to join any other
>club, fine. Who cares? But if I'm your employer, why should that
>have anything to do with me unless I choose to join it, deal with it,
>or otherwise freely choose to associate in some manner with it?
Because I have the right to choose who will represent me.
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
|