3 ms·

Is it ironic? Restricting the labor supply is the core of a union's ability to demand higher wages for its members.

• zozbot234 7y ago
  Even if we were to accept that, there are many ways of "restricting the labor supply"; and nepotism is just about the least efficient you could think of. If you're going to "restrict" access to something, it should be done by rewarding individual merit and competence. (At least that would imply a pretty nice improvement in labor conditions - no more workers being flattened by containers! Which is also the kind of thing unions typically care about.)
  • jcims 7y ago
    > If you're going to "restrict" access to something, it should be done by rewarding individual merit and competence. It should be the case no doubt, but often isn’t because there’s less to leverage. Sometimes you need a favor, you know? But if you give a job to Joe Schmuckus that he could get anywhere, whats the motivation to do you a solid?
  • closeparen 7y ago
    There are at least three propositions in your comment: - Efficiency is implicitly good. - Material rewards can/should be allocated according to some measure of individual merit and competence. - Meritocracy and nepotism are distinct. I tend to agree, but these statements are at least controversial (if not obviously wrong) within the political consciousness that does labor organizing these days. Read Jacobin sometime, you'll see vehement opposition. Internalizing the violent logic of capitalism, etc.