5 ms·

I'm sure many good justifications can be made for this, or for (e.g.) the Taft-Hartley act, but at the end of the day, there is no arguing that the last 75 year

I'm sure many good justifications can be made for this, or for (e.g.) the Taft-Hartley act, but at the end of the day, there is no arguing that the last 75 years of US federal policy decisively kneecapped unions, and we are by no means better off for that.

javert 6y ago
In the past, the US gave unions a bunch of special "rights" that violate the rights of others. It would take a decisive kneecapping to go back to parity. Unions (and corporations, for that matter!) should have the same rights as any other group of people. No more, no less. Labor organizers don't care about that, of course. Their "job" is to increase the power of "labor," by hook or by crook.
- djbebs 6y ago
  This. If union's had less rights than any other organization then you might argue they have been "kneecapped" but that's just not the case. Let companies fire workers for unionizing, let them refuse to negotiate with unions, and in turn let unions do what they are intended to do, serve as a way for groups of workers to jointly apply pressure for their interests alone.
  - croes 6y ago
    "Let companies fire workers for unionizing, let them refuse to negotiate with unions" This renders unions pretty much useless. There is already an imbalance of power in favor of the companies.
    - throwawayboise 6y ago
      Most companies can't fire everyone all at once. If you didn't need your employees, you wouldn't have them in the first place. When both sides have something to lose, then finding acceptable compromise is in everyone's interest.
    - LanceH 6y ago
      That's because unions don't represent workers, they represent their members. If their members are easily replaceable, they don't have much leverage. If you can't fire a union worker for not working (on strike), then you take away all the leverage of not just the company, but of the unemployed who may wish to work and is not represented. I think people white knight for unions all the time but don't look at all the people who couldn't get represented at all. They saw jobs go to people based on connections rather than skills. They applied and simply couldn't get hired -- and were still expected to support the unions politically.
      - rini17 6y ago
        So you say busting unions leads to higher employment? Did that actually ever happen? We have over century of experience, why not learn from it. I'm very sceptical that changing "not everyone is represented" into "nobody is represented" is an improvement.
      - croes 6y ago
        If you can fire workers on strike you remove the only leverage of a union. While on strike you don't get money from your employee and the employee won't make money from his company. So both sides benefit if a strike ends. If you can just replace workers on strike the unions have no power especially today when more workers than work exist.
      - croes 6y ago
        BTW without unions you start a race to the bottom for the wages. But for everyone, even the employees, most of them just ignore that fact.
        missedthecue 6y ago
        "BTW without unions you start a race to the bottom for the wages" Is this why software engineers make so little on the US?
        etripe 6y ago
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      My understanding is that early unions (prior to the New Deal and labor law reform) didn't have much legal protection, and instead resorted to massive strikes. Companies fought back with firings and sometimes violence. Over time labor laws were built up because having major portions of your economy at war does not lead to a stable and productive society. As we disassemble those laws, we'll probably learn why they were created.
  - fallingfrog 6y ago
    Those laws were put in place as a sort of olive branch to unions who were holding mass general strikes where entire cities were shut down. If you get rid of any restrictions on the employers, you better believe the unions are going to go scorched earth in return. You really want that?
- brown9-2 6y ago
  What rights are you referring to?
  - javert 6y ago
    Negative rights, i.e. rights that protect you from the initiation of force by others, i.e. rights that don't create a new obligation for someone else, i.e. what freedom or liberty actually is. I get that labor organizers don't want a free society, and frankly, I don't know how to bridge that gap to convince them otherwise. We want different things.
    - brown9-2 6y ago
      can you provide a specific example of what you are referring to?
      - javert 6y ago
        I don't really understand the question. The fundamental right is the right to not have force initiated against you. All other rights are derivative. For instance, the right to have property, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc. John Locke did good thinking on this, but I suspect a lot of his ideas were already implicitly enshrined in common law (but I'm not an expert on that). More information: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
bradleyjg 6y ago
Public and private sector unions are very different beasts from a power point of view. The employer in the public sector case is not a profit maximizing capitalist but the workers’ fellow citizens. Moreover, it’s well known in political science that concentrated interests are more likely to have their policy preferences enacted than diffuse interests and the interests of workers in their pay and conditions are much more concentrated than those of taxpayers in general government efficiency.
- etripe 6y ago
  > The employer in the public sector case is ... the workers’ fellow citizens. How is a private sector employer not? Are you alluding to the difference in affluence?
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    In the private sector case it might be some fellow citizens, though it need not be, but that’s qualitatively different from all your follow citizens democratically represented. All the theoretical arguments for unions are predicated on the relationship between labor and capital that doesn’t exist in the public sector.

javert 6y ago

In the past, the US gave unions a bunch of special "rights" that violate the rights of others. It would take a decisive kneecapping to go back to parity. Unions (and corporations, for that matter!) should have the same rights as any other group of people. No more, no less. Labor organizers don't care about that, of course. Their "job" is to increase the power of "labor," by hook or by crook.

djbebs 6y ago
This. If union's had less rights than any other organization then you might argue they have been "kneecapped" but that's just not the case. Let companies fire workers for unionizing, let them refuse to negotiate with unions, and in turn let unions do what they are intended to do, serve as a way for groups of workers to jointly apply pressure for their interests alone.
- croes 6y ago
  "Let companies fire workers for unionizing, let them refuse to negotiate with unions" This renders unions pretty much useless. There is already an imbalance of power in favor of the companies.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Most companies can't fire everyone all at once. If you didn't need your employees, you wouldn't have them in the first place. When both sides have something to lose, then finding acceptable compromise is in everyone's interest.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    That's because unions don't represent workers, they represent their members. If their members are easily replaceable, they don't have much leverage. If you can't fire a union worker for not working (on strike), then you take away all the leverage of not just the company, but of the unemployed who may wish to work and is not represented. I think people white knight for unions all the time but don't look at all the people who couldn't get represented at all. They saw jobs go to people based on connections rather than skills. They applied and simply couldn't get hired -- and were still expected to support the unions politically.
    - rini17 6y ago
      So you say busting unions leads to higher employment? Did that actually ever happen? We have over century of experience, why not learn from it. I'm very sceptical that changing "not everyone is represented" into "nobody is represented" is an improvement.
    - croes 6y ago
      If you can fire workers on strike you remove the only leverage of a union. While on strike you don't get money from your employee and the employee won't make money from his company. So both sides benefit if a strike ends. If you can just replace workers on strike the unions have no power especially today when more workers than work exist.
    - croes 6y ago
      BTW without unions you start a race to the bottom for the wages. But for everyone, even the employees, most of them just ignore that fact.
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        "BTW without unions you start a race to the bottom for the wages" Is this why software engineers make so little on the US?
        etripe 6y ago
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    My understanding is that early unions (prior to the New Deal and labor law reform) didn't have much legal protection, and instead resorted to massive strikes. Companies fought back with firings and sometimes violence. Over time labor laws were built up because having major portions of your economy at war does not lead to a stable and productive society. As we disassemble those laws, we'll probably learn why they were created.
- fallingfrog 6y ago
  Those laws were put in place as a sort of olive branch to unions who were holding mass general strikes where entire cities were shut down. If you get rid of any restrictions on the employers, you better believe the unions are going to go scorched earth in return. You really want that?
brown9-2 6y ago
What rights are you referring to?
- javert 6y ago
  Negative rights, i.e. rights that protect you from the initiation of force by others, i.e. rights that don't create a new obligation for someone else, i.e. what freedom or liberty actually is. I get that labor organizers don't want a free society, and frankly, I don't know how to bridge that gap to convince them otherwise. We want different things.
  - brown9-2 6y ago
    can you provide a specific example of what you are referring to?
    - javert 6y ago
      I don't really understand the question. The fundamental right is the right to not have force initiated against you. All other rights are derivative. For instance, the right to have property, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc. John Locke did good thinking on this, but I suspect a lot of his ideas were already implicitly enshrined in common law (but I'm not an expert on that). More information: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

bradleyjg 6y ago

Public and private sector unions are very different beasts from a power point of view. The employer in the public sector case is not a profit maximizing capitalist but the workers’ fellow citizens. Moreover, it’s well known in political science that concentrated interests are more likely to have their policy preferences enacted than diffuse interests and the interests of workers in their pay and conditions are much more concentrated than those of taxpayers in general government efficiency.

etripe 6y ago
> The employer in the public sector case is ... the workers’ fellow citizens. How is a private sector employer not? Are you alluding to the difference in affluence?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  In the private sector case it might be some fellow citizens, though it need not be, but that’s qualitatively different from all your follow citizens democratically represented. All the theoretical arguments for unions are predicated on the relationship between labor and capital that doesn’t exist in the public sector.