7 ms·

I'm perfectly happy with that "power imbalance", whatever that means. Why can't the union refuse to protect non-union workers against this "imbalance"? It soun

I'm perfectly happy with that "power imbalance", whatever that means. Why can't the union refuse to protect non-union workers against this "imbalance"? It sounds like the union needs special legally granted monopoly powers to sell me services I don't actually want. The term for that is "rent seeking", actually.

ashark 10y ago
> I don't know what you mean by "free rider problem" > I'm perfectly happy with that "power imbalance", whatever that means. > It sounds like the union needs special legally granted monopoly powers to sell me services I don't actually want. The term for that is "rent seeking", actually. You may want to do some reading on the topic, it seems, if it's interesting to you. You appear to have picked up some ideas and vocabulary, but missed a lot of others. Should be able to find political-economy or labor relations focused econ textbooks that cover this stuff without difficulty, and probably in some cheap older-revision copy that'll be fine for the purpose. A few minutes looking at 200ish-level poli-sci and econ class syllabi should give you a good idea of what kinds of materials you'd want to hunt down, and I'm guessing a skim over a broad selection of that stuff would be helpful. (EDIT) to give a nutshell description of the power imbalance: it is far more harmful, in the general case, to the individual than to the company when a, say, 500+ person company rejects them as a candidate or fires them, which means they have vastly less leverage in any sort of negotiation, official or otherwise, which may occur.
st3v3r 10y ago
"It sounds like the union needs special legally granted monopoly powers to sell me services I don't actually want." To paraphrase the classic anti-union argument, "Nobody is forcing you to work somewhere with a compulsory union."
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  No one is forcing you to work at a company which colludes with competitors to avoid poaching each other's employees. No one forces you to purchase products from companies that form cartels. However, we've decided as a matter of public policy that collusion of this sort harms consumers and workers.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    So the "You don't have to work there" argument isn't ok here, but it's ok for pretty much any other facet of the job? I mean, when someone talks about conditions with Uber drivers or Instacart shoppers, the number one dismissal is always "you don't have to work there". Why is that acceptable there, but not here?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      When a supplier is granted monopoly power by the state (as unions are), it's perfectly reasonable to impose additional restrictions on them. That's why Cable/Telecoms need to negotiate with regulators to change prices, but Joe's Pizza can charge $20/slice if they want. Joe's Pizza lives in a competitive market and if Joe abuses customers, Mario will show up and sell Pizza on better terms. The same is not true if Comcast abuses customers, or if a union does.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        You're not addressing my point. You're kinda just reinforcing the idea that "You don't have to work there" is ok to tell, say, Uber drivers, but not ok to tell you regarding a company having a union.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I am addressing your point. When you have a non-competitive market - e.g. yellow cabs prior to Uber, employment under current union rules - you often need extra regulation to protect people. If we want to create a competitive market - one where unions have no special legal powers, and employers can stop doing business with them if they choose - then eliminating these worker and employer protections might make sense.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        So once again, it's ok to tell other people that, just not you. And eliminating worker protections never makes sense. It then just becomes a race to see who can undo them the fastest.

ashark 10y ago

> I don't know what you mean by "free rider problem" > I'm perfectly happy with that "power imbalance", whatever that means. > It sounds like the union needs special legally granted monopoly powers to sell me services I don't actually want. The term for that is "rent seeking", actually. You may want to do some reading on the topic, it seems, if it's interesting to you. You appear to have picked up some ideas and vocabulary, but missed a lot of others. Should be able to find political-economy or labor relations focused econ textbooks that cover this stuff without difficulty, and probably in some cheap older-revision copy that'll be fine for the purpose. A few minutes looking at 200ish-level poli-sci and econ class syllabi should give you a good idea of what kinds of materials you'd want to hunt down, and I'm guessing a skim over a broad selection of that stuff would be helpful. (EDIT) to give a nutshell description of the power imbalance: it is far more harmful, in the general case, to the individual than to the company when a, say, 500+ person company rejects them as a candidate or fires them, which means they have vastly less leverage in any sort of negotiation, official or otherwise, which may occur.

st3v3r 10y ago

"It sounds like the union needs special legally granted monopoly powers to sell me services I don't actually want." To paraphrase the classic anti-union argument, "Nobody is forcing you to work somewhere with a compulsory union."

yummyfajitas 10y ago
No one is forcing you to work at a company which colludes with competitors to avoid poaching each other's employees. No one forces you to purchase products from companies that form cartels. However, we've decided as a matter of public policy that collusion of this sort harms consumers and workers.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  So the "You don't have to work there" argument isn't ok here, but it's ok for pretty much any other facet of the job? I mean, when someone talks about conditions with Uber drivers or Instacart shoppers, the number one dismissal is always "you don't have to work there". Why is that acceptable there, but not here?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    When a supplier is granted monopoly power by the state (as unions are), it's perfectly reasonable to impose additional restrictions on them. That's why Cable/Telecoms need to negotiate with regulators to change prices, but Joe's Pizza can charge $20/slice if they want. Joe's Pizza lives in a competitive market and if Joe abuses customers, Mario will show up and sell Pizza on better terms. The same is not true if Comcast abuses customers, or if a union does.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      You're not addressing my point. You're kinda just reinforcing the idea that "You don't have to work there" is ok to tell, say, Uber drivers, but not ok to tell you regarding a company having a union.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I am addressing your point. When you have a non-competitive market - e.g. yellow cabs prior to Uber, employment under current union rules - you often need extra regulation to protect people. If we want to create a competitive market - one where unions have no special legal powers, and employers can stop doing business with them if they choose - then eliminating these worker and employer protections might make sense.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        So once again, it's ok to tell other people that, just not you. And eliminating worker protections never makes sense. It then just becomes a race to see who can undo them the fastest.