4 ms·

> The moral justification for unions is that they prevent mistreatment of employees, not that they can transfer as much of the company's profit as possible to e

> The moral justification for unions is that they prevent mistreatment of employees, not that they can transfer as much of the company's profit as possible to employees. In your opinion. In my view, one of the many moral justifications of unions is that they create a more even playing field between workers and already organized management/capital, and that includes the workers receiving a greater share of the profits the they had an essential role in creating. A worker without a union is like a defendant without a lawyer.

toasterlovin 7y ago
> A worker without a union is like a defendant without a lawyer. That's a bad analogy. Defendants cannot avoid a hearing. Employees can just get another job. Starting businesses is hard. It entails a lot of risk. Risk that was never taken by employees. And employees are not bound to the fortunes of the company the way owners are. If the company loses money or goes belly-up, the employees get new jobs. But the owners must simply bear the loss.
- shantly 7y ago
  Am I to understand that you see labor as systemically privileged under Capitalism?
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    No, I simply see it as one party to a transaction, similar to any of the company's other suppliers. Editing to expand: Being able to depend on a regular paycheck is a helluva thing. Sure, you don't participate in the upside of a company. But you don't participate in the downside, either. That's the bargain that labor makes. If you don't like the bargain, then take some risk and start a company. Most people prefer a steady paycheck, though.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > That's a bad analogy. Defendants cannot avoid a hearing. Employees can just get another job. I don't share your quibbles, but all right. How about this: A worker without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. A lot of court cases are optional. You can always just not demand what you're owed or pay whatever your asked. If you lose, just hope the next person you do business with will be more trustworthy. > Starting businesses is hard. It entails a lot of risk. Risk that was never taken by employees. And employees are not bound to the fortunes of the company the way owners are. If the company loses money or goes belly-up, the employees get new jobs. But the owners must simply bear the loss. So what? None of that is a convincing argument that non-business-owners should not benefit form organization. It's not like owners are the only ones taking a risk [1], workers do too. Do you think they somehow fantastically shift into equivalent new jobs whenever their laid off? Workers invest in company-specific knowledge and put down roots near their employer that are harder relocate than capital, for instance. You also oddly fail to differentiate between groups like the struggling small business owner and the private equity firm billionaire who lays off 10,000 workers just because he'd prefer that he and his shareholders be richer. Whatever sympathy the former deserve is not due to the latter. [1] they're the only ones risking capital, not the only ones taking a risk.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Yes, employees face a hardship if their employer fails. But the hardship is temporary and they are able to get a new job and replace their stream of income. The business owners, on the other hand, lose a stream of income that is fundamentally irreplaceable (since it was tied inextricably with the business). The owners are, thus, invested in a business in a way that employees are not. That doesn't mean I think that business owners are some oppressed class. I am merely pointing out why the owners have no obligation to share in the success of the company beyond the wages which are mutually agreed to. Here's another way to put it: do you think employee pay should be reduced if a company in unprofitable?
einpoklum 7y ago
> A worker without a union is like a defendant without a lawyer. That's a bad analogy, but good unions are about self-organization of workers, not being assisted by _external_ factors. It's also a bad analogy because unionization is, as its name suggests, forming a collective from individuals. The represented defendant is still just one person facing the justice system - and can thus hardly ever challenge its bounds. So - unions are important, but think bigger! Take over the playing field, don't let it continue being controlled by management/capital.

toasterlovin 7y ago

> A worker without a union is like a defendant without a lawyer. That's a bad analogy. Defendants cannot avoid a hearing. Employees can just get another job. Starting businesses is hard. It entails a lot of risk. Risk that was never taken by employees. And employees are not bound to the fortunes of the company the way owners are. If the company loses money or goes belly-up, the employees get new jobs. But the owners must simply bear the loss.

shantly 7y ago
Am I to understand that you see labor as systemically privileged under Capitalism?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  No, I simply see it as one party to a transaction, similar to any of the company's other suppliers. Editing to expand: Being able to depend on a regular paycheck is a helluva thing. Sure, you don't participate in the upside of a company. But you don't participate in the downside, either. That's the bargain that labor makes. If you don't like the bargain, then take some risk and start a company. Most people prefer a steady paycheck, though.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> That's a bad analogy. Defendants cannot avoid a hearing. Employees can just get another job. I don't share your quibbles, but all right. How about this: A worker without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. A lot of court cases are optional. You can always just not demand what you're owed or pay whatever your asked. If you lose, just hope the next person you do business with will be more trustworthy. > Starting businesses is hard. It entails a lot of risk. Risk that was never taken by employees. And employees are not bound to the fortunes of the company the way owners are. If the company loses money or goes belly-up, the employees get new jobs. But the owners must simply bear the loss. So what? None of that is a convincing argument that non-business-owners should not benefit form organization. It's not like owners are the only ones taking a risk [1], workers do too. Do you think they somehow fantastically shift into equivalent new jobs whenever their laid off? Workers invest in company-specific knowledge and put down roots near their employer that are harder relocate than capital, for instance. You also oddly fail to differentiate between groups like the struggling small business owner and the private equity firm billionaire who lays off 10,000 workers just because he'd prefer that he and his shareholders be richer. Whatever sympathy the former deserve is not due to the latter. [1] they're the only ones risking capital, not the only ones taking a risk.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Yes, employees face a hardship if their employer fails. But the hardship is temporary and they are able to get a new job and replace their stream of income. The business owners, on the other hand, lose a stream of income that is fundamentally irreplaceable (since it was tied inextricably with the business). The owners are, thus, invested in a business in a way that employees are not. That doesn't mean I think that business owners are some oppressed class. I am merely pointing out why the owners have no obligation to share in the success of the company beyond the wages which are mutually agreed to. Here's another way to put it: do you think employee pay should be reduced if a company in unprofitable?

einpoklum 7y ago

> A worker without a union is like a defendant without a lawyer. That's a bad analogy, but good unions are about self-organization of workers, not being assisted by _external_ factors. It's also a bad analogy because unionization is, as its name suggests, forming a collective from individuals. The represented defendant is still just one person facing the justice system - and can thus hardly ever challenge its bounds. So - unions are important, but think bigger! Take over the playing field, don't let it continue being controlled by management/capital.