4 ms·
Unions don't exist for the employees' benefit, they exist for the union's benefit. There's a big ol difference, and because of their protected status, unions ge
by tylerl 8y ago
Unions don't exist for the employees' benefit, they exist for the union's benefit. There's a big ol difference, and because of their protected status, unions get away with a lot of really horrifying behavior.
I've worked with several unions in different industries, and I can say pretty categorically that unions are brazenly unethical.
Unions may sometimes improve working conditions and pay, but only in the sense that the mafia reduces crime. You have to start out from a truly horrifying place for their bargain to be any better, and in taking that deal you're giving up on ever having a healthy environment.
- mcv 8y agoEmployees shouldn't join unions that don't exist for their benefit. And if a union doesn't benefit the workers, they should leave and start a new union. This happened years ago in Netherland: many railway employees weren't happy with something their union (part of the largest union federation) negotiated for them, so they left and started a competing union to negotiate for them instead. Messy, embarrassing for the big union, but it solved the problem. Not sure if the alternative union still exists or if it merged back into the large union again.
- CarlSchmitt 8y agoUnion electrician here...I can annectdotally counter your "categorical" claim...have you ever worked in a skilled trade union?