3 ms·

> Unions are a cartel of employees who use the threat of harm to limit the freedom of employers and individual workers from freely entering into mutually benefi

> Unions are a cartel of employees who use the threat of harm to limit the freedom of employers and individual workers from freely entering into mutually beneficial work arrangements. Individual workers are in a weaker negotiating position than employers, so without a union it's highly likely that, on average, they are receiving lower compensation than they might absent that weaker bargaining position (the short-version explanation being that, in the typical case, it harms an employee more to miss an opportunity than for a company to pass on an employee, simply due to the nature of the two entities). I don't see why employees being in a weak bargaining position does not cause "harm" but their banding together to be in a stronger position does, nor why, given that position, they should be expected to voluntarily make worse deals than they could. Further, we collectively choose, via government, to permit such a thing as a corporation to exist in the first place, so in my view there's no natural or moral argument for the state of their being in a better negotiating position than labor, and even if we go on to arrange things such that they are made weaker than labor, somehow—not just equal or less-dominant—it's gonna take more than the simple fact of things being that way to convince me they're being harmed in some sense that should make me feel bad for them or that some moral wrong is being committed. I don't think corporations, provided their privileges and their very existence by force of law, are being particularly harmed in some sense worthy of moral assignment by having to deal with strong collective bargaining entities for labor, nor that we can call gains in negotiations made by those labor entities unfair or immoral if they aim to gain the best deals they can without also having to label much of Capitalism as such (I might follow you down that road, actually, as I'm not sure it's wrong and it seems, at first glance, consistent, at least).

toasterlovin 7y ago
> Individual workers are in a weaker negotiating position than employers Are they? In normal conditions (which seem to largely prevail in most parts of the U.S. labor market), the negotiating positions of both parties are fundamentally determined, not by either party, but by unrelated 3rd parties who are participating in the same labor market. Employers would like to pay as little as possible and employees would like to earn as much as possible. But the ability of both parties to achieve their desired outcome is dependent on their ability to walk away and obtain a better price (whether they're buying or selling labor).
- shantly 7y ago
  Yes. Being rejected by an employer in the typical case hurts a prospective employee more than it hurts the employer doing the rejecting. I mean, look at who applies to whom and who’s usually perceived as being the stronger party in interviews. That tells the story right there. [edit] how about this: you find a case where a normal employee tells a company they need to spend a half hour typing their job ad details and past pay for the same position into a web form especially for that applicant before they’ll even be considered, then also reformat their ad to match new specs the applicant gives them, and submit that to the applicant as a word document, and the company actually does it, and I’ll eat my hat. Employees are plainly the weaker supplicant in those interactions. Yes they’re “free” to do otherwise, but their job search will... go poorly.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Have you ever been in the hiring side of the table? Employers take a risk when they hire. They’re signing up to make large payments twice a month starting immediately. Yet they won’t know if the hire is any good for months. Both parties are taking risks and committing resources. That’s part of kicking the tires on a new economic partnership.

toasterlovin 7y ago

> Individual workers are in a weaker negotiating position than employers Are they? In normal conditions (which seem to largely prevail in most parts of the U.S. labor market), the negotiating positions of both parties are fundamentally determined, not by either party, but by unrelated 3rd parties who are participating in the same labor market. Employers would like to pay as little as possible and employees would like to earn as much as possible. But the ability of both parties to achieve their desired outcome is dependent on their ability to walk away and obtain a better price (whether they're buying or selling labor).

shantly 7y ago
Yes. Being rejected by an employer in the typical case hurts a prospective employee more than it hurts the employer doing the rejecting. I mean, look at who applies to whom and who’s usually perceived as being the stronger party in interviews. That tells the story right there. [edit] how about this: you find a case where a normal employee tells a company they need to spend a half hour typing their job ad details and past pay for the same position into a web form especially for that applicant before they’ll even be considered, then also reformat their ad to match new specs the applicant gives them, and submit that to the applicant as a word document, and the company actually does it, and I’ll eat my hat. Employees are plainly the weaker supplicant in those interactions. Yes they’re “free” to do otherwise, but their job search will... go poorly.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Have you ever been in the hiring side of the table? Employers take a risk when they hire. They’re signing up to make large payments twice a month starting immediately. Yet they won’t know if the hire is any good for months. Both parties are taking risks and committing resources. That’s part of kicking the tires on a new economic partnership.