On: Swedish Tesla strike goes international as Norwegi...

[wharvle]

The party’s not unrelated.

[throwawa14223 → wharvle]

Yes, in both cases.

[wharvle → throwawa14223]

Are boards of directors unrelated parties you’re forced to associate with if you don’t want to severely limit your employment options?

[throwawa14223 → wharvle]

The people the owners of the company have selected to run the company on their behalf are directly related to a company. I fail to see the similarity.

[wharvle → throwawa14223]

It’s a legally required body for many companies. It’s being imposed by law. Same as required unions would be.

[throwawa14223 → wharvle]

I've never been forced to become a member of a corporate board. This proposal however is that I be required to join a union. That is the material difference.

[wharvle → throwawa14223]

True. You’re merely forced to be subject to their decisions, made on behalf of and in the interest of people who aren’t you.

[edit] I’m getting the sense that if we just restructure this so the union exists and does normal union stuff but you don’t have to “be a member” (but do have to abide by its decisions or else leave, as with a board) you’d be ok with it? Like it’s mainly a semantic problem?

[throwawa14223 → wharvle]

I see it as more than a semantic problem, but the problem does boil down to the membership. If they are the lawful structure I'll abide by their decisions, I just don't want to be forced to join.

[Apocryphon → throwawa14223]

So it’s exactly the same as a union, in a situation where the union is the lawful structure of worker bodies in the country you’re working in.

[throwawa14223 → Apocryphon]

I hate the idea. I've been in a union once and will never willingly do that again, but it would be more palatable if they couldn't claim me as a 'member'.