4 ms·

For multiple reasons. Which you don’t list.

conanbatt 9y ago
State often limits who can unionize. For example in argentina, police and firemen cant unionize. In the us maybe the military cant ( but the can in argentina!) Second some jobs are easier to unionize than others due to geographicalities. Farmers in the us have below minimum incomes. Their effective unionization has no limit on how much wages they could get. But because its impossible to be cohesive with small numbes and large distances it doesnt happen. Unions form successfully by their capcity to limit supply. Anything that can be imported breaks unions. Anything that cant helps them. Thats why teachers, cops, garbage and transport are unions in the us, but electronic manufacture isnt. Hope this is enough!
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  Farmers unions exist. Police and fire brigade unions exist. Manufacturers unions exist. Did you know that unions have been illegal in various countries at various points of time? People still unionised and fought to have it made legal. It isn’t always easy, but any worker can unionise. You seem to be confusing possibility with activity.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The prohibition of unions was a terrible thing indeed, and unions themselves have also been producers of tremendous violence, murder and oppression. There are no short examples of abuse. Nevertheless, any union that has significant effects has them by providing new limitations on labor. You don't need to ban unions to make them dissapear, you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      > Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The barrier to entry for unionizing is a lot lower than getting rich and hiring a servant. That is not a comparable situation. Incredibly poor labourers and rich professionals alike unionize. > you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly. We have completely voluntary unionism in my industry and people join the union voluntarily. You seem to have a _very_ skewed view of unions that only takes the negatives. My union (Professionals Australia) takes a pragmatic view to labour relations. I resigned from my previous union because they didn't take that view and focussed on short-term gains for only a subset of their members.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Trade unions are the easiest example of monopolization of labor. I bet you a bitcoin they either lobby to require professional degrees to excercise labor or give out their own. Tell me if i should give you an address.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        I'm torn. I really want to say 'I'm not making childish bets with you'. But then I really want you to give me a BTC. I'm not making childish bets with you. You have an... interesting... view of labour relations that I haven't come across before. Did you say you were Argentinean?
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Yup. Professional licenses are one of the most classic examples of limiting supply. Classic as Adam smith, wealth of nations, 1776 classic, where he talks about the artificial restriction of a certain number of years of study to be able to exercise some labor skill.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        Ugh my union does no such thing - but you won't believe me so let's just stop there hey? Even if it did, I have no moral objection to labour banding together to restrict supply. It's just the free market in action. Actors (capital, labour, consumer) are free to band together and increase their functional power. There is no perfect state of equilibrium in a market, just a temporary pause. Same goes for capital and labour - what works now won't work tomorrow and so constant tension and negotiation will occur. Some parties will lose and some will win. Either way the situation is merely temporary. Or is the free market just for capital to band together to increase it's power?

State often limits who can unionize. For example in argentina, police and firemen cant unionize. In the us maybe the military cant ( but the can in argentina!) Second some jobs are easier to unionize than others due to geographicalities. Farmers in the us have below minimum incomes. Their effective unionization has no limit on how much wages they could get. But because its impossible to be cohesive with small numbes and large distances it doesnt happen. Unions form successfully by their capcity to limit supply. Anything that can be imported breaks unions. Anything that cant helps them. Thats why teachers, cops, garbage and transport are unions in the us, but electronic manufacture isnt. Hope this is enough!

jackvalentine 9y ago
Farmers unions exist. Police and fire brigade unions exist. Manufacturers unions exist. Did you know that unions have been illegal in various countries at various points of time? People still unionised and fought to have it made legal. It isn’t always easy, but any worker can unionise. You seem to be confusing possibility with activity.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The prohibition of unions was a terrible thing indeed, and unions themselves have also been producers of tremendous violence, murder and oppression. There are no short examples of abuse. Nevertheless, any union that has significant effects has them by providing new limitations on labor. You don't need to ban unions to make them dissapear, you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    > Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant. The barrier to entry for unionizing is a lot lower than getting rich and hiring a servant. That is not a comparable situation. Incredibly poor labourers and rich professionals alike unionize. > you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly. We have completely voluntary unionism in my industry and people join the union voluntarily. You seem to have a _very_ skewed view of unions that only takes the negatives. My union (Professionals Australia) takes a pragmatic view to labour relations. I resigned from my previous union because they didn't take that view and focussed on short-term gains for only a subset of their members.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Trade unions are the easiest example of monopolization of labor. I bet you a bitcoin they either lobby to require professional degrees to excercise labor or give out their own. Tell me if i should give you an address.
      - jackvalentine 9y ago
        I'm torn. I really want to say 'I'm not making childish bets with you'. But then I really want you to give me a BTC. I'm not making childish bets with you. You have an... interesting... view of labour relations that I haven't come across before. Did you say you were Argentinean?
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Yup. Professional licenses are one of the most classic examples of limiting supply. Classic as Adam smith, wealth of nations, 1776 classic, where he talks about the artificial restriction of a certain number of years of study to be able to exercise some labor skill.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        Ugh my union does no such thing - but you won't believe me so let's just stop there hey? Even if it did, I have no moral objection to labour banding together to restrict supply. It's just the free market in action. Actors (capital, labour, consumer) are free to band together and increase their functional power. There is no perfect state of equilibrium in a market, just a temporary pause. Same goes for capital and labour - what works now won't work tomorrow and so constant tension and negotiation will occur. Some parties will lose and some will win. Either way the situation is merely temporary. Or is the free market just for capital to band together to increase it's power?