3 ms·

I guess to me it just seems especially perverse, because the union is supposed to be working in the interest of the worker. The worker even pays the union. Yet

by ip26 8y ago

I guess to me it just seems especially perverse, because the union is supposed to be working in the interest of the worker. The worker even pays the union. Yet sinking the company is not in the interest of the worker. Corporations can sink themselves because they are granted self-determination. That's sort of fundamental, sans bailouts. That said, I would be happy if we could tweak incentives to shift focus away from short term returns towards long term. Companies are not perfect either, and my omission was not meant to imply they were.

crdoconnor 8y ago
>Yet sinking the company is not in the interest of the worker. It's not necessarily a big deal. The workers can just go and get another job. It's the owners who are really crying. It's not especially perverse for unions to be indifferent to the risk of sinking the company if the people they represent hold no stake in it. Especially since the threats that this will happen from the owners will be overblown.
- ip26 8y ago
  I guess I didn't mention, but I'm most specifically thinking of unions that have sunk the company in a fight over pension obligations. Union has a choice of reduced pension payout, or drive the company under & everybody loses their pension as a result. Union, unwilling to reduce pension payout, chooses the latter. Everybody winds up worse off. It almost reminds me of The Scorpion and The Frog
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    Every time I've heard of this happening it's because the pension fund has been raided beforehand. I guess it's like that "fairness experiment" where monkeys would rather deprive the other side of 8 berries than take 2.
- ComputerGuru 8y ago
  What world do you live in where losing your job is "not a big deal," and anyone "can just go and get another job?" If that were true, we wouldn't need unions in the first place.
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    shrug I've done it while on minimum wage. Unions are needed to raise wages, not because it's necessarily hard to move from one low wage job to another. People do it all the time. The company going out of business is a problem for the employees and is obviously a risk, it's just not a big and existential risk like it is for the owners.

by ip26 8y ago

crdoconnor 8y ago

>Yet sinking the company is not in the interest of the worker. It's not necessarily a big deal. The workers can just go and get another job. It's the owners who are really crying. It's not especially perverse for unions to be indifferent to the risk of sinking the company if the people they represent hold no stake in it. Especially since the threats that this will happen from the owners will be overblown.

ip26 8y ago
I guess I didn't mention, but I'm most specifically thinking of unions that have sunk the company in a fight over pension obligations. Union has a choice of reduced pension payout, or drive the company under & everybody loses their pension as a result. Union, unwilling to reduce pension payout, chooses the latter. Everybody winds up worse off. It almost reminds me of The Scorpion and The Frog
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  Every time I've heard of this happening it's because the pension fund has been raided beforehand. I guess it's like that "fairness experiment" where monkeys would rather deprive the other side of 8 berries than take 2.
ComputerGuru 8y ago
What world do you live in where losing your job is "not a big deal," and anyone "can just go and get another job?" If that were true, we wouldn't need unions in the first place.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  shrug I've done it while on minimum wage. Unions are needed to raise wages, not because it's necessarily hard to move from one low wage job to another. People do it all the time. The company going out of business is a problem for the employees and is obviously a risk, it's just not a big and existential risk like it is for the owners.