This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not an effortpost, just a casual summary of a court case in which people may be interested:
Audrey Stone was a Southwest flight attendant, and also the president of the flight attendants' union. In her capacity as union president, she attended an pro-abortion protest and at that rally implicitly represented all the flight attendants at Southwest. Specifically, she carried signs with the Southwest logo on them, and the expenses of union members who attended the protest were paid for using union funds.
Charlene Carter was another Southwest flight attendant, who had left the union several years prior and was in active opposition to the union (including leading a recall campaign against Stone). She was opposed to abortion, and therefore was angered by Stone's implicit representation that all of Southwest's flight attendants were in favor of abortion. On Facebook, she sent to Stone various anti-abortion messages, including graphic videos of aborted fetuses.
Stone complained to Southwest, which fired Carter for "representing our company in a manner that is disparaging to Southwest Flight Attendants". An arbitrator confirmed that the firing was supported by "just cause" under the applicable collective-bargaining agreement.
Carter (1) sued the union for failing to properly represent her in the complaint process, (2) sued both the union and Southwest for retaliating against her due to her protected speech (both union-related and religion-related), and (3) sued both the union and Southwest for discriminating against her due to her religious beliefs. A jury agreed that all of these charges were valid, and awarded to her millions of dollars in damages. Due to federal law, the judge capped the damages at 600 k$ in compensatory and punitive damages, 150 k$ in backpay, and 60 k$ in pre-judgment interest.
On the basis of the jury verdict, Carter also asked for an injunction (1) reinstating her to her former position, (2) forbidding Southwest from violating its flight attendants' rights to religious speech and union-related speech in the future, and (3) requiring Southwest to inform all its flight attendants of item 2, including an explicit mention of Title VII (which protects religious speech). The judge granted the request. Southwest apparently asked for some parts of the ruling to be stayed pending appeal, but it did not ask for part 3 to be stayed.
Southwest then openly defied part 3 of the judge's ruling, and instead sent to all its flight attendants a message (1) stating that Southwest would continue to enforce its policies and (2) failing to mention Title VII. Accordingly, Carter moved that Southwest be held in contempt of court.
The judge investigated, and found that the memo circulated to the flight attendants was drafted by one of Southwest's in-house lawyers (Kevin Minchey), who obviously should know better than to willfully defy the judge in this manner.
Therefore the judge: (1) told Southwest to distribute a specific message verbatim, without edits, in order to comply with part 3 of the ruling; and (2), as sanction for this willful disobedience of the court's order, required three of Southwest's in-house lawyers (including Minchey), as representatives of Southwest itself, to undergo at least eight hours of religious-liberty training conducted by a representative of the Alliance Defending Freedom, since the lawyers obviously don't understand religious-liberty law properly.
Relevant court documents:
232 (denial of summary judgment)
374 (confirmation of jury verdict)
467 (grant of sanctions)
483 (denial of stay of sanctions)
The Washington Post complains that "Southwest had a constitutional right to issue a memo expressing its disagreement with the jury verdict". The judge's response to this argument is: Speech can be compelled by the government as long as it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Making sure that Southwest's flight attendants are aware of their rights under Title VII is a compelling government interest, and the message that the judge is forcing Southwest to send is as narrowly tailored to that interest as possible. Also, the message ordered by the judge is significantly less objectionable than the longer notice (including an apology) that Carter originally asked the judge to force Southwest to send.
The Washington Post complains that "subjecting lawyers to training by an ideological advocacy group such as ADF", rather than "by accredited law schools", is "ludicrous". But the judge points out that ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases on the topic of religious liberty in recent years, so it obviously is well-qualified to conduct a training session on that topic.
One thing, or rather a couple closely related things, I don't understand. If Carter left the union, how would she still fall under their CBA, and why would they be expected to represent her? Seems like she wanted to have her cake and eat it too. These are exactly the things she'd be voluntarily giving up by choosing not to be part of the union.
Honestly I'm surprised leaving the union is even something you *can *do at SWA - most workplaces I'm familiar with are either unionized or they're not, and in the former case you either belong to the union or you don't work there. Or maybe that statement was misleading? What exactly is meant by "had left the union several years prior" here?
Presumably, Southwest is not a "union shop".
Quotes from the complaint:
Quote from the second cited Supreme Court opinion:
Okay, seems weird to me, and I'm reasonably sure that's not how it would work here, but clearly there's settled law on this in the US. TIL.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So does this mean that companies can be compelled to post false warrant canaries? Or is the interpretation narrower than that / limited to compelled truthful speech?
I don't think there's anything new here. I'm quite certain that there's a long history of courts ordering employers to inform their employees about their rights regarding things like unionization, racial discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.
Yep, the break room or lunch room at pretty much every office I've worked at has posters of all those things, required by law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I hate that this is framed as a freedom of religion issue. So I may publicly disagree with the woke Jacobins without fearing reprimand as an employee as long as my dissent lines up with the teachings of another cult?
Note that Carter also won on several union-related counts, not just on religion-related counts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the question of when one’s speech begins to represent the opinion of an organization or otherwise stops being simply your own touches both this and the Peterson Social Media case. In both, the question is when are you speaking in behalf of your organization. I think there needs to be something done to give people clear lines because it’s really an end run around free speech at this point. All I need to do is have you always represent your work and then your speech in no longer protected.
More options
Context Copy link
Interesting case. Now I disagree with unions (in most cases) and I believe you should be allowed to fire someone because they are a Christian and vice versa or because they have a skin color you don’t like.
But since there is a union involved I definitely think special protections should be involved. The flight attendant can’t bargain for herself and work in her chosen profession. It’s not a free market. It’s already at its core a coercive relationship where she’s forced to join the union.
Stones her union rep by government force. So she certainly should have to deal with the complaints of her constituency. Without knowing all the legalese here it feels like this was decided correctly.
But a core part of this to me comes from unions only existing because of government violence. Otherwise they wouldn’t exists.
There are a small amount of unions that would freely appear without government. Construction is one potential area as project may be short-lived and both sides of the transaction would prefer to work with an organization verifying worker quality.
The solution in a free market (works best when it’s a constant costs business like airlines and not firms with moats who can discriminate) would be for the wrong thinkers or wrong skin pigment bidding their labor cheaper than the right thinkers and the firm hiring the wrong thinkers makes more money.
Apart, as someone else has pointed out, being kind of meaningless since corporations only exist because of government violence too, it's also rather unhistorical. During the initial phase of the emergence of unions in Britain they were banned under the Combination Act 1799 - an odd thing to do if unions only exist because of positive government action. They often persisted in spite of such legislation in the form of friendly societies and the like. Even today in most of the West unions have at least many restrictions on their behaviour as they do protections.
Corporations would exists without government violence. And historically there are examples of them happening like basically any long distance trade. Where a group of people wanting to share risks in the enterprise.
Trade might happen without government violence (though they would still be involved in protecting the property of those engaged in trade), but the corporation as it exists in modern America is absolutely the product of government intervention, especially in terms of creating the necessary legal infrastructure for things such as limited liability companies. In addition government intervention assists corporate activity via patents and trademarks, regulation of union activity and most of all creating the peaceable environment that allows their private property 'rights' to have any meaning at all.
Why couldn’t limited liability corporations exists without government?
If I buy consumer product from “Y” there is a risks the product fails and I get hurt etc. But I could still see public disclosures on their equity risks and see that the loss to shareholders is limited. So if I buy a car from them and the brakes fail killing my daughter I still contracted for that risks and as the consumer would realize I can’t sue them for full value.
because limited liability for tort victims only exists with state intervention
limited liability against consumers, creditors, employees, other known parties, could all be done by mutual agreement, but limited liability to third parties, e.g., someone who is killed by one of the corporation's drivers, can only exist with state intervention
to see how clownish this can get, check out some of the horror stories related to people who are injured by cabs: driver has no money, car is owned by one company, taxi medallion owned by another company, and only $20,000 (probably different now) insurance policy is required
you may have agreed to the risk, but the claim would rest with your daughter, for which you likely have a survivor claim wrongful death lawsuit on her behalf, even if we agreed you had signed away your "rights" by buying the product
I'm sure we could come up with a hypo to avoid this issue and I only mentioned this because it reveals a third party innocent who has not agreed to limited liability.
Can agree unrelated third party issues would exists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The job of the union is to represent the rights of the workers when bargaining with employers. Unions have little to no business advocating for anything outside that. The airline, too, seems to have tacitly agreed that it was pro-abortion by letting the union rep use their logo.
I think we all know what would have happened if Ms. Carter had tried using the airline logo or union funds to go attend a pro-life rally. Now, did she harass Ms. Stone online? That's debatable. Certainly I think she had a right to complain that what the airline tacitly supported was not the views of the entirety of the workforce, and that there was no justification for coming down on one side rather than the other.
I agree since I believed she used the word despicable. Though sending pictures of fetuses could just be considered educational.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...They can exist by private violence too, right? Like, a bunch of workers can band together and agree to break the legs of anyone who doesn't stand with them, right?
They can exist by no violence at all. For most of the early 19th century in Britain, the direction of violence was unquestionably from government and mill-owner towards unionist.
It seems to me that such organization, sans violence, requires a fairly high level of social cohesion to tamp down on defectors. maybe in the early 19th century, the workers really were cohesive enough that social shaming or other "soft" enforcement mechanisms could get the job done. On the other hand, maybe the violence then was simply informal and illegible. Either way, we're not that cohesive any more, and unions have what seems to me to be a well-earned reputation for playing dirty.
Well unions can/could reduce 'defection' both by securing sufficient benefits for their members that joining becomes rational anyway. If a union reaches a critical mass of membership where an employer can't really do without it in the short to medium term, a union can negotiate better terms that a non-unionised employee doesn't have the bargaining power to secure and if a certain size negotiate closed shop agreements with employers in a fully voluntary manner. Unions had no special legal protections at least until 1871 (and even then that's debatable, some would put it further forward in 1906).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. Fundamentally they require violence at some stage to exists. Mafia would be the example of an organization that used those practices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link