3 ms·
I'm critical of unions for a number of reasons, including artificially preventing automation and technological progress in order to prevent redundancies and poi
by beaconstudios 9y ago
I'm critical of unions for a number of reasons, including artificially preventing automation and technological progress in order to prevent redundancies and pointless mandates like ensuring that only union appointed electricians can plug in a socket. If you think the only people critical of unions are your stereotypical evil capitalists then you might want to look up the arguments people make against them - one can't defend a position if they don't know the opposition's arguments.
- grecy 9y ago> one can't defend a position if they don't know the opposition's arguments. I agree, that's why I asked for other people's augments against them. And of course you are correct, unions are not perfect and sometimes are downright stupid (your two examples). Just because something is not perfect is not a reason to not have it. It's just a good reason to improve it. On the whole, unions (including their sometimes stupid rules) are better that not unions, and I have never seen a compelling argument otherwise (other than the two reasons I mentioned in my original post, which are not valid)
- beaconstudios 9y agoI agree, and I never suggested that unions should be banned or otherwise prevented from existing. I think unions should have a right to exist but shouldn't necessarily be propped up by legislation that gives them the upper hand in negotiations (e.g. anti-strikebreaker legislation). I think unions are positive or negative on a case-by-case basis. Given the value of human life, safety-critical industries almost always benefit from union presence but Hollywood for example seems to take on unions as a burgeoning cost of doing business without them providing much in the way of real value. I don't think they're universally good or bad.