4 ms·

Why would people want competition on a union? They don't work like corporations - competition weakens them. I think this fundamentally misunderstands the purpo

Why would people want competition on a union? They don't work like corporations - competition weakens them. I think this fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and function of a union.

moate 6y ago
So they can pose hypothetical arguments about the corruption of the as-yet unformed union in an effort to undermine support for it. "What if the union is BAD!? We should consider other things before we lock ourselves into a democratic power-structure that allows greater agency for the laboring class against management because reasons!"
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  More like so you can appease the people with those worries. Worried about these issues? Here's a safety valve. One look at any thread about unions and you can see a significant number of people have these worries, so why not give them some choices?
  - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
    Why not let them undermine solidarity because they have all these hypothetical and unfounded worries? I can think of some reasons.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
      How is it solidarity if you exclude their worries? You think it's unfounded. They disagree.
pingpongchef 6y ago
I can think of a few reasons competition can be beneficial. 1. Exert downward pressure on union fees 2. Offer alternatives in the case of union corruption 3. Offer alternatives in union priorities/mission Also, I don't follow how competition in the two spaces, firms and unions, is necessarily different in kind. To the degree that competition "weakens" unions, the same should apply to firms.
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  The difference from a worker's perspective is that increased competition for their work should drive wages up, while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power. But to address your points: 1. Union dues are low. Given what organizing actually looks like, multiple unions are more likely to undermine the existence of a unionized workforce at all than to drive dues down. 2. Ideally, union corruption would be dealt with the entire shop moving to a different local, not the shop splitting into sectors. 3. Workers elect their stewards and negotiators, who set the negotiating agenda. It's not perfect, but this would be better dealt with by new representation than by adding another union with a competing agenda. Like I said, I believe this reflects a misunderstanding about the function of unions and what workers are trying to get out of them.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    > while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power. It couldn't undermine it compared to no union at all, could it? It seems like still a net improvement.

Why would people want competition on a union? They don't work like corporations - competition weakens them. I think this fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and function of a union.

moate 6y ago

So they can pose hypothetical arguments about the corruption of the as-yet unformed union in an effort to undermine support for it. "What if the union is BAD!? We should consider other things before we lock ourselves into a democratic power-structure that allows greater agency for the laboring class against management because reasons!"

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
More like so you can appease the people with those worries. Worried about these issues? Here's a safety valve. One look at any thread about unions and you can see a significant number of people have these worries, so why not give them some choices?
- kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
  Why not let them undermine solidarity because they have all these hypothetical and unfounded worries? I can think of some reasons.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    How is it solidarity if you exclude their worries? You think it's unfounded. They disagree.

pingpongchef 6y ago

I can think of a few reasons competition can be beneficial. 1. Exert downward pressure on union fees 2. Offer alternatives in the case of union corruption 3. Offer alternatives in union priorities/mission Also, I don't follow how competition in the two spaces, firms and unions, is necessarily different in kind. To the degree that competition "weakens" unions, the same should apply to firms.

kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
The difference from a worker's perspective is that increased competition for their work should drive wages up, while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power. But to address your points: 1. Union dues are low. Given what organizing actually looks like, multiple unions are more likely to undermine the existence of a unionized workforce at all than to drive dues down. 2. Ideally, union corruption would be dealt with the entire shop moving to a different local, not the shop splitting into sectors. 3. Workers elect their stewards and negotiators, who set the negotiating agenda. It's not perfect, but this would be better dealt with by new representation than by adding another union with a competing agenda. Like I said, I believe this reflects a misunderstanding about the function of unions and what workers are trying to get out of them.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  > while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power. It couldn't undermine it compared to no union at all, could it? It seems like still a net improvement.