4 ms·
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 ca
by 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 agoSo 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 agoIf 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 agoBTW 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 agoFor every software engineer, there are tenfold logistics, customer service, house keeping and hospitality workers. You know, the people living on food stamps because their employers are anti-union. The difference between the former and the latter isn't unions, but "market value".