5 ms·

bring back unions

briandear 8y ago
Are individuals incapable of making decisions on their own? Why shouldn’t the individual have the choice to drive or not drive as well as making decisions about their economic situation? Nobody is forced to drive. Nobody is forced to work for less than they value their labor. Unionizing Uber means dramatically high prices, which means less demand. There isn’t a magic pot of money just waiting to be distributed. If comes from consumer pockets. If Uber gets more expensive, I’ll drive myself. So that guy that would have made $10, now makes zero because he thinks he deserves $20. So he is actually worse off now. Markets don’t work in a vacuum — there are substitutes and you can’t “fix” a problem without unintended consequences. Let supply and demand work. Those that think they should earn more can quit and to sell their services to someone willing to pay their desired rates. If nobody will pay that desired rate, then it’s clear that the market doesn’t value that service that much. Why is supply and demand so hard for people to understand? We oppose industrial monopolies, why would we advocate for labor monopolies via unions?
- Thlom 8y ago
  Who said anything about monopolies? I though a union was just workers banding together and using their strength in number to negotiate better working conditions, better pay and so on? It's easy for someone with a sought after talent to say normal workers can just "quit and sell their services to someone willing to pay more", but that isn't an actual option for many many people.
- trophycase 8y ago
  Unions solve the coordination problem and nullify the leverage a corporation has over workers. This leverage imbalance creates imperfect markets, it doesn't facilitate it. People need to eat, they need to take time to find a new job, they need to build skills. High prices of medicine is a great example: They can get away with charging so much simply because there is an imbalance between how much you need them versus how much they need you.
  - _cs2017_ 8y ago
    Could you elaborate? Why does employer have leverage? Other employers compete for labor and are willing to increase wages if that's what it takes to get the staff they need. There's already a law that prohibits multiple employers from colluding to reduce that competition.
- icantdrive55 8y ago
  "Why is supply and demand so hard for people to understand?" 1. We don't have a fair playing field anymore, with the exception of a few specialized field, like Tech Workers. 2. We are over regulated. Too many professions have rediculious financial barriers to entry. And fees/fines are not progressive. And demand licenses, bonds, insurance for practically every profession. 3. Our legislative system is basically bought by the wealthy. It's ironic the poor/middle class do not have the insight/maturity to see they are being manipulated, and kept away from the real opportunities. The system is rigged by the wealthy, and that's why the 1 percent own so dam much. If your one of them, supply and demand curve is a beautiful thing? You can jump in and out without much risk. Work one day on a non-union construction job site. Then work one day in a union job site. It's night and day. In the San Francisco Bay Area a union worker is making $50/hr. plus benefits, and has a free paid apprenticeship. The no-union hires bodies for minimum wage, or maybe starting $10 hr. You learn kinda on the job. There's no future. You might as well work retail, and save your back. Since we live in a very unfair capitalistic society, all that supply/demand theory is still valid in books, but not so much in real American life? I can't think of any job that wasen't improved by a union. The wealthy disliked unions so much they moved whatever was moveable overseas. Service jobs are hard to move overseas. Which makes them ripe for unionization--now? Then again we have so many despirate people here, the service jobs are still a bitch to unionize? "But the unemployment rate--dude?" Why is the "able bodied, but aren't working" number so dam high. Oh yea, those Side Hussle jobs are just not advertising enough? Why is homelessness at a all time high? (Maybe percentage size, it was higher during The Depression?) Tech is a bit different. It's so new, it's like a gold rush. Just learn the stuff, build a few projects, be young, know a few techies, and you have a pretty good job. Wait until the sectors of tech mature. We will have rock bottom wages, and no real job security. And now--your lucky if you're working after 40? A poor man gets a $500 vechicle infraction. It might be the last straw. A rich man get a $500 vechicle infraction. He laughingly tells the wife over dinner. Something stinks in this country?
- ljm 8y ago
  I don't think your examples paint the picture you intended here, instead it comes across as entitled and lacking in empathy. > "...he thinks he deserves $20." Who said anything about deserving? You said as much that you'd drive yourself when it came to a $20 ride; you wouldn't drive yourself if it was $10. This more or less suggests the only reason Uber provides value to you is because it charges less than what you'd charge if you were providing it, because you think you deserve $20. In that instance it's not unfair to say that you get value out of Uber undercutting the competition. > "Those that think they should earn more can quit..." I suppose they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps too? Not many of us can enjoy the privilege of quitting our jobs because we know we're worth more than we're getting. I have that privilege and I use it often, like many of us do in tech. For as long as we value low prices at all costs, there will always be someone who is forced into taking on this kind of job because they don't have the luxury of choice that we do. They can't quit because it's either the $10 you want to give them, so you can save $10 for yourself, or nothing. It's been clear enough for a long time that those who enjoy the services from others won't really advocate for them, and neither will their employers, so unions and regulations are there to sort that out.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Are individuals incapable of making decisions on their own?" You must not think so if you believe they shouldn't have the ability to join a union. "Nobody is forced to drive" This whole "nobody is forced to" meme loses any and all credibility once you think for 2 seconds and realize that people are forced to work or starve. "Let supply and demand work." We're not the ones stopping it from working; employers are.
mjevans 8y ago
I think unions would work best as a replacement for the "good" (to workers) part of "HR". For any unionized category/shop there should be a grouping of unions (adding a new union to that group should require a simple majority among a voting quorum of all active employees) which could thus collectively bargain between a large business and/or group of businesses and the workers that make that possible. I also like the idea that unions on strike (in this case, groups of them; they'd agree to go out on strike together and vote together for it) don't disrupt business, but rather nullify profits. Maybe they agree that during "strikes" all compensation gets divided by charity/etc. This goes for the workers AND the businesses; both of whom still have to pay normal costs. -- edit -- I forgot one other critical feature. Just like employees might take an employee though any of the unions, so to can the employee switch unions (I assume seniority and compensation offers would be favorable to prompt such a switch.)
ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
I don't know if we need unions, but we need to recognize that the incentive for a business is only to be maximally profitable. And they are only responsible to their shareholders. It would be nice if Governments properly recognized the value businesses provide with long term stable jobs, and aligned the incentive in a way that creates more stable and happy communities in the distant future. Right now governments will give anything to Amazon to get them to move to town and bring all those jobs with them. But how much will we incentive McDonald's to keep jobs, and not to replace all their employees with perfect hamburger vending machines?

bring back unions

Are individuals incapable of making decisions on their own? Why shouldn’t the individual have the choice to drive or not drive as well as making decisions about their economic situation? Nobody is forced to drive. Nobody is forced to work for less than they value their labor. Unionizing Uber means dramatically high prices, which means less demand. There isn’t a magic pot of money just waiting to be distributed. If comes from consumer pockets. If Uber gets more expensive, I’ll drive myself. So that guy that would have made $10, now makes zero because he thinks he deserves $20. So he is actually worse off now. Markets don’t work in a vacuum — there are substitutes and you can’t “fix” a problem without unintended consequences. Let supply and demand work. Those that think they should earn more can quit and to sell their services to someone willing to pay their desired rates. If nobody will pay that desired rate, then it’s clear that the market doesn’t value that service that much. Why is supply and demand so hard for people to understand? We oppose industrial monopolies, why would we advocate for labor monopolies via unions?

Thlom 8y ago
Who said anything about monopolies? I though a union was just workers banding together and using their strength in number to negotiate better working conditions, better pay and so on? It's easy for someone with a sought after talent to say normal workers can just "quit and sell their services to someone willing to pay more", but that isn't an actual option for many many people.
trophycase 8y ago
Unions solve the coordination problem and nullify the leverage a corporation has over workers. This leverage imbalance creates imperfect markets, it doesn't facilitate it. People need to eat, they need to take time to find a new job, they need to build skills. High prices of medicine is a great example: They can get away with charging so much simply because there is an imbalance between how much you need them versus how much they need you.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  Could you elaborate? Why does employer have leverage? Other employers compete for labor and are willing to increase wages if that's what it takes to get the staff they need. There's already a law that prohibits multiple employers from colluding to reduce that competition.
icantdrive55 8y ago
"Why is supply and demand so hard for people to understand?" 1. We don't have a fair playing field anymore, with the exception of a few specialized field, like Tech Workers. 2. We are over regulated. Too many professions have rediculious financial barriers to entry. And fees/fines are not progressive. And demand licenses, bonds, insurance for practically every profession. 3. Our legislative system is basically bought by the wealthy. It's ironic the poor/middle class do not have the insight/maturity to see they are being manipulated, and kept away from the real opportunities. The system is rigged by the wealthy, and that's why the 1 percent own so dam much. If your one of them, supply and demand curve is a beautiful thing? You can jump in and out without much risk. Work one day on a non-union construction job site. Then work one day in a union job site. It's night and day. In the San Francisco Bay Area a union worker is making $50/hr. plus benefits, and has a free paid apprenticeship. The no-union hires bodies for minimum wage, or maybe starting $10 hr. You learn kinda on the job. There's no future. You might as well work retail, and save your back. Since we live in a very unfair capitalistic society, all that supply/demand theory is still valid in books, but not so much in real American life? I can't think of any job that wasen't improved by a union. The wealthy disliked unions so much they moved whatever was moveable overseas. Service jobs are hard to move overseas. Which makes them ripe for unionization--now? Then again we have so many despirate people here, the service jobs are still a bitch to unionize? "But the unemployment rate--dude?" Why is the "able bodied, but aren't working" number so dam high. Oh yea, those Side Hussle jobs are just not advertising enough? Why is homelessness at a all time high? (Maybe percentage size, it was higher during The Depression?) Tech is a bit different. It's so new, it's like a gold rush. Just learn the stuff, build a few projects, be young, know a few techies, and you have a pretty good job. Wait until the sectors of tech mature. We will have rock bottom wages, and no real job security. And now--your lucky if you're working after 40? A poor man gets a $500 vechicle infraction. It might be the last straw. A rich man get a $500 vechicle infraction. He laughingly tells the wife over dinner. Something stinks in this country?
ljm 8y ago
I don't think your examples paint the picture you intended here, instead it comes across as entitled and lacking in empathy. > "...he thinks he deserves $20." Who said anything about deserving? You said as much that you'd drive yourself when it came to a $20 ride; you wouldn't drive yourself if it was $10. This more or less suggests the only reason Uber provides value to you is because it charges less than what you'd charge if you were providing it, because you think you deserve $20. In that instance it's not unfair to say that you get value out of Uber undercutting the competition. > "Those that think they should earn more can quit..." I suppose they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps too? Not many of us can enjoy the privilege of quitting our jobs because we know we're worth more than we're getting. I have that privilege and I use it often, like many of us do in tech. For as long as we value low prices at all costs, there will always be someone who is forced into taking on this kind of job because they don't have the luxury of choice that we do. They can't quit because it's either the $10 you want to give them, so you can save $10 for yourself, or nothing. It's been clear enough for a long time that those who enjoy the services from others won't really advocate for them, and neither will their employers, so unions and regulations are there to sort that out.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Are individuals incapable of making decisions on their own?" You must not think so if you believe they shouldn't have the ability to join a union. "Nobody is forced to drive" This whole "nobody is forced to" meme loses any and all credibility once you think for 2 seconds and realize that people are forced to work or starve. "Let supply and demand work." We're not the ones stopping it from working; employers are.

mjevans 8y ago

I think unions would work best as a replacement for the "good" (to workers) part of "HR". For any unionized category/shop there should be a grouping of unions (adding a new union to that group should require a simple majority among a voting quorum of all active employees) which could thus collectively bargain between a large business and/or group of businesses and the workers that make that possible. I also like the idea that unions on strike (in this case, groups of them; they'd agree to go out on strike together and vote together for it) don't disrupt business, but rather nullify profits. Maybe they agree that during "strikes" all compensation gets divided by charity/etc. This goes for the workers AND the businesses; both of whom still have to pay normal costs. -- edit -- I forgot one other critical feature. Just like employees might take an employee though any of the unions, so to can the employee switch unions (I assume seniority and compensation offers would be favorable to prompt such a switch.)

ghostbrainalpha 8y ago

I don't know if we need unions, but we need to recognize that the incentive for a business is only to be maximally profitable. And they are only responsible to their shareholders. It would be nice if Governments properly recognized the value businesses provide with long term stable jobs, and aligned the incentive in a way that creates more stable and happy communities in the distant future. Right now governments will give anything to Amazon to get them to move to town and bring all those jobs with them. But how much will we incentive McDonald's to keep jobs, and not to replace all their employees with perfect hamburger vending machines?