3 ms·

The entire modern conception is bad because they are granted special rights from the government. If a union was just an organization of people doing collective

The entire modern conception is bad because they are granted special rights from the government. If a union was just an organization of people doing collective bargaining their would be no problems - unfortunately they want special rights and will use force to achieve them.

eli 16y ago
The problem is the balance of power begins so overwhelmingly on the side of the employer. If an employer doesn't want its employees to unionize it's extraordinarily difficult for them to do so.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The only power the employer has is to offer money in return for labor. Similarly, the employee has the power to offer labor in return for money. In this regard, there is complete equality between parties. The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government) to prevent any third parties from undercutting them. In contrast, the employer is forbidden from colluding with other employers regarding the hiring of employees. The union is permitted to withhold their services from the employer. The employer, however, is forbidden from withholding employment from the union. Near as I can tell, all a union does is shifts power completely from employers and workers into the hands of the union. Not to mention that it deprives third parties (non-union workers) of their rights.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    The only power the employer has is to offer money in return for labor. Similarly, the employee has the power to offer labor in return for money. There are other things to be offered besides money. Unfortunately, these are often faked by employers.
  - hga 16y ago
    "The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government)" Well, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, isn't violence violence, Western governments in general have extended their monopoly on the use of force to unions. In the US if you have a complaint about a union engaging in violence against you (vs. individually identifiable members), it is my understanding it isn't subject to the rule of law, you have to bring it before the political NLRB instead of taking it to the courts. WRT to your last point, unions are a conspiracy of some workers against others. Think about it, which do they hate more, "scabs" or "management"? Anyway, imagine a world where in order to begin your startup you've got to negotiate with a union to set up a union shop with a union steward. You personally are doing (some) management as well as coding ... no can do! Etc.

eli 16y ago

The problem is the balance of power begins so overwhelmingly on the side of the employer. If an employer doesn't want its employees to unionize it's extraordinarily difficult for them to do so.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
The only power the employer has is to offer money in return for labor. Similarly, the employee has the power to offer labor in return for money. In this regard, there is complete equality between parties. The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government) to prevent any third parties from undercutting them. In contrast, the employer is forbidden from colluding with other employers regarding the hiring of employees. The union is permitted to withhold their services from the employer. The employer, however, is forbidden from withholding employment from the union. Near as I can tell, all a union does is shifts power completely from employers and workers into the hands of the union. Not to mention that it deprives third parties (non-union workers) of their rights.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  The only power the employer has is to offer money in return for labor. Similarly, the employee has the power to offer labor in return for money. There are other things to be offered besides money. Unfortunately, these are often faked by employers.
- hga 16y ago
  "The union has the power to use threats of violence (at the hands of the government)" Well, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, isn't violence violence, Western governments in general have extended their monopoly on the use of force to unions. In the US if you have a complaint about a union engaging in violence against you (vs. individually identifiable members), it is my understanding it isn't subject to the rule of law, you have to bring it before the political NLRB instead of taking it to the courts. WRT to your last point, unions are a conspiracy of some workers against others. Think about it, which do they hate more, "scabs" or "management"? Anyway, imagine a world where in order to begin your startup you've got to negotiate with a union to set up a union shop with a union steward. You personally are doing (some) management as well as coding ... no can do! Etc.