3 ms·
Looks like the union negotiated a 30% raise for pilots so, that's a few Xboxes for the pilots. I don't think this ad will be effective. But I see your other po
by bargl 7y ago
Looks like the union negotiated a 30% raise for pilots so, that's a few Xboxes for the pilots. I don't think this ad will be effective.
But I see your other points and they're all good. I don't know if the law of unintended consequences would mean union competition became a race to the bottom or a race to the top. But I think some unions are not as effective as others, and I don't know why that is.
- danaris 7y agoI mean, the answer's not all that complicated: Unions are made up of people, and different people have different levels of ability. Some unions elect people to lead them who are corrupt, and want to simply hoard the power for themselves and those closest to them. Some unions elect people to lead them who are incompetent, and no matter how hard they try, they can't achieve the union's goals. And some unions elect people to lead them who have both the desire and the ability to genuinely achieve the union's goals, and make things better for the workers without crippling the business(es) they work for. Looking at long-standing unions, the problem is multiplied further by entrenched attitudes, cultures, and even rules that differentiate them, built up over more than a century. Some of these will likely increase effectiveness, while others will hamper it. All of this is, incidentally, a big part of why most anti-union rhetoric is so frustrating to me: it paints all unions as being one thing (and a bad thing at that), when it's painfully obvious that there is no fundamental requirement for unions to, for instance, make sure that terrible employees are un-fireable. It's just something that's built up in some of the old, crusty ones.