6 ms·

For anyone reading along at home, this is one of the oldest and most standard anti-union talking points. #1 on the list, in fact. [1] [1] http://www.bankablein

For anyone reading along at home, this is one of the oldest and most standard anti-union talking points. #1 on the list, in fact. [1] [1] http://www.bankableinsight.com/ways-unions-hurt-the-economy.html http://www.bankableinsight.com/ways-unions-hurt-the-economy.... [2] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/17/unions-harmful-workers.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/17/unions-harmful-wor...

conanbatt 9y ago
Because its true. Unions can only increase wages by reducing the amount of workers. Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term. If uber drivers unionized and made uber pay them more, then less capital would go to uber and eventually have less workers. Ultimately the return on capital will end up being the same, because capital looks for returns and will move. So in effect, it would only increase wages of drivers as long as it can prevent other drivers from showing up. For anyone at home that wants to listen to someone that knows more about economy than any of us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Literally everything you said is FUD and a maliciously deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of unions. Unions exist to collectively bargain on behalf of workers in markets in which individual workers do not have sufficient bargaining power to achieve the same results. They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members. They remain in power in those markets due to their legally-granted right to remain in power in perpetuity without periodic recertification or reauthorization elections. That's not an opinion; that's legal fact, just like saying that the President of the United States is in power because the law grants him that right until January 2021. Unlike government, where politicans have to run for re-election every N years, once a union forms, there is no legal obligation to hold an election to keep them in power. (The process for petitioning for a decertification election is incredibly difficult, and unions are actually granted a great deal of leeway by the law in taking action to prevent these elections from happening. Furthermore, even in cases where they do happen, and the majority votes to decertify the union, the election results may be overturned by the NLRB.) All in all, if you want to argue the case that unions successfully bargain for better results on behalf of workers, you can't really rely on the fact that they remain in power, because that's already the default - it takes an extraordinary degree of opposition to remove them.
    - lostboys67 9y ago
      Union's have regular democratic elections for positions CEO's don't face a mandatory share holder vote every year or two do they
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    The very link I posted tells that the union power comes from above free narket rates. I agree 100%. And it does so bu restricting supply. Unions have an arsenal of tools to achieve that.
  - dotancohen 9y ago
    I see that there is quite a bit of history and passion in what appears to be an old flame war, so excuse me if I'm asking the obvious. Americans seems to favour "free market" at almost any cost, but you mention that Unions are not free market (for labor) yet they provide better results. So why the "free market" passion?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Would you make the same argument for companies that have monopolies? They achieve above free-market profits, so why the "free market" passion? If you think of labor as a commodity, unions are simply a monopoly of labor. Everyone wants a monopoly of what they sell, and freedom of what they buy, this is no different. I would be very hard pressed to find a good union case that didnt provoke some sort of restriction on other workes, either by wage fixing, protectionism or supply limiting.
      - dotancohen 9y ago
        I'm on neither side of the debate. Thank you for the perspective.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term." Why not? Google could make half the profit, pay it workers more and still make a boatload of money.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Google stock would plummet because people will sell to buy apple that is not following the same policy. So as soon as google does that, the stock dip will lower wages within and hire less.
    - sundaeofshock 9y ago
      How does a reduction in stock price lower wages?
      - bzbarsky 9y ago
        A significant fraction of compensation for Google employees is RSUs.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Lower stock means the company has less capital to invest in its own ventures, and less capital is less employment within the company. This is true even if no employee got stock whatsoever.
    - bobdole1234 9y ago
      Why? It's not like Google or Apple pay dividends. Google is currently handing out giant sacks with dollar signs on them to machine learning people far exceeding the meager means of most other companies, and the stock price is rising. By your logic, shouldn't they be in the crapper for over-compensating these folks compared to what the market value?
      - jiaaro 9y ago
        Apple pays dividends. Google is paying a lot for talent because of supply and demand - competitors are also paying high rates for the same talent.
- saghm 9y ago
  > Unions can only increase wages by reducing the amount of workers. Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term. Why do you think that it's mathematically impossible for a company to find the money some other way? Any profitable company by definition makes more money than it spends, so it's clearly possible for such a company to pay its workers more without having to reduce costs (i.e. hire fewer workers) or go into debt.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    If a company makes less money than others, it will stop investing investingn in itself and divert funds to more profitable ventures. The rate of profit will regulate the amount of capital. The amoubt of capital will regulate the amount of workers. You cant reduce a compnies profits and think that will increase employment.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      > If a company makes less money than others, it will stop investing investingn in itself and divert funds to more profitable ventures.+ + In a free market without monopoly in its industry
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Is your argument that unions are effective against monopolistic companies? Maybe, but it's an approach of looking into the abyss.
        ethbro 9y ago
        I'm saying that statements like this: > You cant reduce a compnies profits and think that will increase employment. Have a lot of implicit assumptions about the market that company operates in, assumptions that may or may not be true in the modern global economy.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >Why do you think that it's mathematically impossible for a company to find the money some other way? Depends on the industry. If there's a lot of foreign competition and workers aren't mindful of the health of the industry, they can easily kill it off. That's what happened to steel production in the US.
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  TL;DR unions: a collective that can put pressure on businesses. Treat employees better, or they go on strike, see how the business can operate then. This will work for airlines, because if only half the pilots go on strike they'll have huge problems. Doesn't work for Uber, because if half the drivers go on strike, pay will go up for the other half and more people are likely to work for Uber because the bar for entry is so low. Also no, uber would just raise prices. I'm fairly sure it was unions that made it difficult for just anyone to become a taxi driver though - protecting their own income, limiting competition etc.
- lostboys67 9y ago
  Nope they can argue for a greater share of the profits of the company or better pension rights. Back when I was a union branch secretary I helped get several thousand people get a better deal from the BT pension scheme.

conanbatt 9y ago

Because its true. Unions can only increase wages by reducing the amount of workers. Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term. If uber drivers unionized and made uber pay them more, then less capital would go to uber and eventually have less workers. Ultimately the return on capital will end up being the same, because capital looks for returns and will move. So in effect, it would only increase wages of drivers as long as it can prevent other drivers from showing up. For anyone at home that wants to listen to someone that knows more about economy than any of us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4

gamblor956 9y ago
Literally everything you said is FUD and a maliciously deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of unions. Unions exist to collectively bargain on behalf of workers in markets in which individual workers do not have sufficient bargaining power to achieve the same results. They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > They remain in power in those markets precisely due to their continuing ability to achieve better-than-free-market rates for their members, as evidenced by the death/diminishment of unions in many fields where they are not able to maintain above-market compensation for their members. They remain in power in those markets due to their legally-granted right to remain in power in perpetuity without periodic recertification or reauthorization elections. That's not an opinion; that's legal fact, just like saying that the President of the United States is in power because the law grants him that right until January 2021. Unlike government, where politicans have to run for re-election every N years, once a union forms, there is no legal obligation to hold an election to keep them in power. (The process for petitioning for a decertification election is incredibly difficult, and unions are actually granted a great deal of leeway by the law in taking action to prevent these elections from happening. Furthermore, even in cases where they do happen, and the majority votes to decertify the union, the election results may be overturned by the NLRB.) All in all, if you want to argue the case that unions successfully bargain for better results on behalf of workers, you can't really rely on the fact that they remain in power, because that's already the default - it takes an extraordinary degree of opposition to remove them.
  - lostboys67 9y ago
    Union's have regular democratic elections for positions CEO's don't face a mandatory share holder vote every year or two do they
- conanbatt 9y ago
  The very link I posted tells that the union power comes from above free narket rates. I agree 100%. And it does so bu restricting supply. Unions have an arsenal of tools to achieve that.
- dotancohen 9y ago
  I see that there is quite a bit of history and passion in what appears to be an old flame war, so excuse me if I'm asking the obvious. Americans seems to favour "free market" at almost any cost, but you mention that Unions are not free market (for labor) yet they provide better results. So why the "free market" passion?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Would you make the same argument for companies that have monopolies? They achieve above free-market profits, so why the "free market" passion? If you think of labor as a commodity, unions are simply a monopoly of labor. Everyone wants a monopoly of what they sell, and freedom of what they buy, this is no different. I would be very hard pressed to find a good union case that didnt provoke some sort of restriction on other workes, either by wage fixing, protectionism or supply limiting.
    - dotancohen 9y ago
      I'm on neither side of the debate. Thank you for the perspective.
maxxxxx 9y ago
"Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term." Why not? Google could make half the profit, pay it workers more and still make a boatload of money.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Google stock would plummet because people will sell to buy apple that is not following the same policy. So as soon as google does that, the stock dip will lower wages within and hire less.
  - sundaeofshock 9y ago
    How does a reduction in stock price lower wages?
    - bzbarsky 9y ago
      A significant fraction of compensation for Google employees is RSUs.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Lower stock means the company has less capital to invest in its own ventures, and less capital is less employment within the company. This is true even if no employee got stock whatsoever.
  - bobdole1234 9y ago
    Why? It's not like Google or Apple pay dividends. Google is currently handing out giant sacks with dollar signs on them to machine learning people far exceeding the meager means of most other companies, and the stock price is rising. By your logic, shouldn't they be in the crapper for over-compensating these folks compared to what the market value?
    - jiaaro 9y ago
      Apple pays dividends. Google is paying a lot for talent because of supply and demand - competitors are also paying high rates for the same talent.
saghm 9y ago
> Unions can only increase wages by reducing the amount of workers. Unions dont get wage increases by reducing the profits of capital in the long term. Why do you think that it's mathematically impossible for a company to find the money some other way? Any profitable company by definition makes more money than it spends, so it's clearly possible for such a company to pay its workers more without having to reduce costs (i.e. hire fewer workers) or go into debt.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  If a company makes less money than others, it will stop investing investingn in itself and divert funds to more profitable ventures. The rate of profit will regulate the amount of capital. The amoubt of capital will regulate the amount of workers. You cant reduce a compnies profits and think that will increase employment.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > If a company makes less money than others, it will stop investing investingn in itself and divert funds to more profitable ventures.+ + In a free market without monopoly in its industry
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Is your argument that unions are effective against monopolistic companies? Maybe, but it's an approach of looking into the abyss.
      - ethbro 9y ago
        I'm saying that statements like this: > You cant reduce a compnies profits and think that will increase employment. Have a lot of implicit assumptions about the market that company operates in, assumptions that may or may not be true in the modern global economy.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >Why do you think that it's mathematically impossible for a company to find the money some other way? Depends on the industry. If there's a lot of foreign competition and workers aren't mindful of the health of the industry, they can easily kill it off. That's what happened to steel production in the US.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
TL;DR unions: a collective that can put pressure on businesses. Treat employees better, or they go on strike, see how the business can operate then. This will work for airlines, because if only half the pilots go on strike they'll have huge problems. Doesn't work for Uber, because if half the drivers go on strike, pay will go up for the other half and more people are likely to work for Uber because the bar for entry is so low. Also no, uber would just raise prices. I'm fairly sure it was unions that made it difficult for just anyone to become a taxi driver though - protecting their own income, limiting competition etc.
lostboys67 9y ago
Nope they can argue for a greater share of the profits of the company or better pension rights. Back when I was a union branch secretary I helped get several thousand people get a better deal from the BT pension scheme.