3 ms·

>simply because Tesla is much more competitive without its workforce unionized Do you really think unions believe that they have a negative effect on business?

>simply because Tesla is much more competitive without its workforce unionized Do you really think unions believe that they have a negative effect on business? This action fits in with the stated ideals of unionization, so why do you feel the need to explain it as part of some hidden agenda? >In many states labor unions have significant power granted by favorable laws that far exceed the market power they derive simply from organizing labor and leveling the playing field a bit. This doesn't provide evidence that unions are overstepping their bounds in this case. >So while I strongly support organized labor in abstract, it's difficult to blame Tesla for wishing to make its workforce less vulnerable to attack from big labor. Like many interest groups, big labor is mostly concerned with its own survival and growth, and is not really about the workers at all. What in your mind separates ordinary labor unions from "big labor"? What made you draw the conclusion that the workers distributing literature were part of "big labor", and not just "leveling the playing field a bit"?

grandalf 9y ago
> Do you really think unions believe that they have a negative effect on business? They don't care. Unions drove the US automakers into bankruptcy with unsustainable pension plans, and corrupt regulators failed to adequately insure them via the PBGC. Thus Unions and firms colluded to foist pension risk onto taxpayers. I've encountered the most bigoted, anti-immigrant, racist rants from union workers. Rather than focusing on larger economic trends and the obvious need for continual training and skill-improvement, unions focus on workers feeling entitled to a certain wage or standard of living even when economic shifts render those skills obsolete. Because of the cronyism with regulators, massive sections of the economy get hijacked by their deals, and consumers have to essentially pay them welfare for failing to be competitive in the marketplace for decades. Think of the most backward industries in the US, those are the ones with the strongest union involvement. Yes, those industries helped in the past to elevate people out of poverty, but now they simply hold back progress in the same way that cozy regulations benefitting financial firms and banks hold back progress in banking.
- dilemma 9y ago
  Peak Silicon Valley Anarcho-capitalism.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > Because of the cronyism with regulators Whereas of course banks, Wall Street, corporations in general have _never_ been accused of being a little too cozy with their regulators, right?

grandalf 9y ago

> Do you really think unions believe that they have a negative effect on business? They don't care. Unions drove the US automakers into bankruptcy with unsustainable pension plans, and corrupt regulators failed to adequately insure them via the PBGC. Thus Unions and firms colluded to foist pension risk onto taxpayers. I've encountered the most bigoted, anti-immigrant, racist rants from union workers. Rather than focusing on larger economic trends and the obvious need for continual training and skill-improvement, unions focus on workers feeling entitled to a certain wage or standard of living even when economic shifts render those skills obsolete. Because of the cronyism with regulators, massive sections of the economy get hijacked by their deals, and consumers have to essentially pay them welfare for failing to be competitive in the marketplace for decades. Think of the most backward industries in the US, those are the ones with the strongest union involvement. Yes, those industries helped in the past to elevate people out of poverty, but now they simply hold back progress in the same way that cozy regulations benefitting financial firms and banks hold back progress in banking.

dilemma 9y ago
Peak Silicon Valley Anarcho-capitalism.
FireBeyond 9y ago
> Because of the cronyism with regulators Whereas of course banks, Wall Street, corporations in general have _never_ been accused of being a little too cozy with their regulators, right?