5 ms·
It sounds ridiculous because your example isn't a imposition of a third party but rather a contract the counterparty signed to and thus asking something the cou
by beaeglebeached 3y ago
It sounds ridiculous because your example isn't a imposition of a third party but rather a contract the counterparty signed to and thus asking something the counterparty doesn't consent to doing.
- lovich 3y agoAnd can a company and union not sign a contract for only exclusively using union labor, sort of like some exclusivity deal?
- beaeglebeached 3y agoSure, then it's no longer third party dissent but counterparty dissent in hiring non union. Obviously competitors will emerge to varying success to employ these excluded persons.
- lovich 3y agoSo then you don’t have a problem with being required to be part of a union to work at certain companies. I’d also like to point out that you needed to have this framed in the context of a union negotiating the same way as a company before you were ok with it. Why the visceral reaction to unions but none for companies?
- beaeglebeached 3y agoThe initial premise was 'all' employees. If the company and employee have choice to choose union/non union I have no problem with it. The visceral reaction was to denial of employment by mutual consent.