3 ms·

> That's why there is no union of doctors or investment bankers... Wrong. The AMA sets an even higher bar than any union.

wahern 6y ago
1) I think the point is that all skilled jobs by definition benefit from a barrier to entry. As far as suitability to unionization, it hardly matters whether the barrier is experience, education, or taxi medallions. 2) AFAIU, for many years now the bottleneck in the United States for doctors has mostly been residency slots, which aren't controlled in any manner by the AMA, AFAIK. Skilled nurses are even more supply constrained than doctors despite having relatively lower barriers to entry. The issue there seems to simply be not enough teachers.
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  The point is a classic straw man. There’s more reasons to support an influential trade organization other than just pay and job security. - Ethics : Litigating the worst behaviors (Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc.). - Quality and security: There is no cost advantage to supporting security, unless somebody pushes to make it that way. I can’t find a large US bank that supports Yubikey. Also think of the chaos with Experian. - Solidarity with very important (and struggling) fields like investigative journalism. My field destroys jobs and creates others, but quality information is just too important. I can go on.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > The point is a classic straw man. It depends on whether you're coming at the question from a prescriptivist or a descriptivist viewpoint. The point about skilled workers isn't a strawman from a descriptivist viewpoint--i.e. understanding why there's less demand for unionization. Even from a prescriptivist viewpoint the point is relevant as to why alternative approaches might be better--e.g. giving consumers and users more power by rolling back limitations on class actions, and statutorily creating new rights of action designed to force companies to internalize more of their costs (e.g. regarding security). Why rely on unions, which are principally designed to look after employee interests, to address issues related to consumers or society as a whole, especially when there are alternatives that empower groups whose self interests are a better fit for your prescriptivist goals? That said, many skilled nurses are unionized. So there's definitely reason to believe that if unskilled Amazon employees become unionized, other skilled employees might follow suit, and that could be a good thing for all the reasons you described.
    - nobodyandproud 6y ago
      It’s a strawman in the sense that this entire conversation was a response to the following: > They're only closer to management in the sense that they make more money and have better conditions. Their livelihood is just as precarious and just as dependent on their bosses for income, and they can be fired just as easily -- and they have their own grievances about scope and purpose of work At least when I read it money and stability (or lack of) is a given, but scope and purpose of the work is really the distinguishing factor. Though looking at it again maybe OP meant all of the above is a reason for a trade organization. > Why rely on unions, which are principally designed to look after employee interests, to address issues related to consumers or society as a whole, especially when there are alternatives that empower groups whose self interests are a better fit for your prescriptivist goals Because it’s necessary? Currently how can an employee blow the whistle on unethical practices, without significant repercussions?

wahern 6y ago

1) I think the point is that all skilled jobs by definition benefit from a barrier to entry. As far as suitability to unionization, it hardly matters whether the barrier is experience, education, or taxi medallions. 2) AFAIU, for many years now the bottleneck in the United States for doctors has mostly been residency slots, which aren't controlled in any manner by the AMA, AFAIK. Skilled nurses are even more supply constrained than doctors despite having relatively lower barriers to entry. The issue there seems to simply be not enough teachers.

nobodyandproud 6y ago
The point is a classic straw man. There’s more reasons to support an influential trade organization other than just pay and job security. - Ethics : Litigating the worst behaviors (Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc.). - Quality and security: There is no cost advantage to supporting security, unless somebody pushes to make it that way. I can’t find a large US bank that supports Yubikey. Also think of the chaos with Experian. - Solidarity with very important (and struggling) fields like investigative journalism. My field destroys jobs and creates others, but quality information is just too important. I can go on.
- wahern 6y ago
  > The point is a classic straw man. It depends on whether you're coming at the question from a prescriptivist or a descriptivist viewpoint. The point about skilled workers isn't a strawman from a descriptivist viewpoint--i.e. understanding why there's less demand for unionization. Even from a prescriptivist viewpoint the point is relevant as to why alternative approaches might be better--e.g. giving consumers and users more power by rolling back limitations on class actions, and statutorily creating new rights of action designed to force companies to internalize more of their costs (e.g. regarding security). Why rely on unions, which are principally designed to look after employee interests, to address issues related to consumers or society as a whole, especially when there are alternatives that empower groups whose self interests are a better fit for your prescriptivist goals? That said, many skilled nurses are unionized. So there's definitely reason to believe that if unskilled Amazon employees become unionized, other skilled employees might follow suit, and that could be a good thing for all the reasons you described.
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    It’s a strawman in the sense that this entire conversation was a response to the following: > They're only closer to management in the sense that they make more money and have better conditions. Their livelihood is just as precarious and just as dependent on their bosses for income, and they can be fired just as easily -- and they have their own grievances about scope and purpose of work At least when I read it money and stability (or lack of) is a given, but scope and purpose of the work is really the distinguishing factor. Though looking at it again maybe OP meant all of the above is a reason for a trade organization. > Why rely on unions, which are principally designed to look after employee interests, to address issues related to consumers or society as a whole, especially when there are alternatives that empower groups whose self interests are a better fit for your prescriptivist goals Because it’s necessary? Currently how can an employee blow the whistle on unethical practices, without significant repercussions?