4 ms·

I hope it's an optional union. I'd be significantly more pro-union if employees could choose to leave the union whenever without having to leave the job. IMO,

I hope it's an optional union. I'd be significantly more pro-union if employees could choose to leave the union whenever without having to leave the job. IMO, part of the reason why unions are so controversial is that, once formed, they're hard to dismantle when run poorly. Fixing union problems requires that employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. The advantages of unionized labor should be so good that enough employees will opt-in to keep the union powerful.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. > employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. I agree that nobody should have to do politics to have a good blue-collar job. Unions arise out of the necessity to play politics with management in order to keep such jobs in existence.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  > Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. That statement is illogical. It reeks of treating labor as a captive market to prop up an organization that no longer provides value. That's why the union has to be voluntary. Either it provides value and employees continue to participate, or fades away like a bad restaurant.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say a statement you disagree with is "illogical." Why shouldn't businesses be able to freely & voluntarily enter into any contract they want to? If the contract with the union stipulates that they will only hire union workers, workers are free to voluntarily pick a different job where the employer has freely not entered into such a contract. No captive markets here, unless an employer has a captive labor market over its employees.
    - gwbas1c 6y ago
      Again, your statement is illogical. > workers are free to voluntarily pick a different job where the employer Then there's no point for a union. (Remember, unions aren't for employees who can negotiate directly with their employer, or who generally benefit from an open labor market.) > an employer has a captive labor market over its employees And that's where unions are critical. But, getting back to my original point, it creates a "who's watching the watchers" situation. You don't have to look far to learn about the corruption in the Detroit UAW. The kickbacks made the national news. But, more importantly, after such a scandal do we really believe that the Detroit UAW was looking out for their members' best interests? That's why I firmly believe those kinds of unions need to be optional. Ultimately, employees in a captive labor market need to be able to effortlessly walk away from their union. It needs to be as simple as canceling a newspaper. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to have a "check and balance" if the union becomes corrupt.
pseudalopex 6y ago
Federal law prohibits making union membership a condition of employment. It also forces unions to represent non members. Alabama law says non members don't have to pay for the services a union is forced to provide them.

whimsicalism 6y ago

Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. > employees engage in a form of politics that no one should be forced to do just to have a good blue-collar job. I agree that nobody should have to do politics to have a good blue-collar job. Unions arise out of the necessity to play politics with management in order to keep such jobs in existence.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gwbas1c 6y ago
> Free-ridership problems exist and are very big with unions, even those with indisputably good effects. This is why unions can't always be voluntary. That statement is illogical. It reeks of treating labor as a captive market to prop up an organization that no longer provides value. That's why the union has to be voluntary. Either it provides value and employees continue to participate, or fades away like a bad restaurant.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I think it's a bit of a stretch to say a statement you disagree with is "illogical." Why shouldn't businesses be able to freely & voluntarily enter into any contract they want to? If the contract with the union stipulates that they will only hire union workers, workers are free to voluntarily pick a different job where the employer has freely not entered into such a contract. No captive markets here, unless an employer has a captive labor market over its employees.
  - gwbas1c 6y ago
    Again, your statement is illogical. > workers are free to voluntarily pick a different job where the employer Then there's no point for a union. (Remember, unions aren't for employees who can negotiate directly with their employer, or who generally benefit from an open labor market.) > an employer has a captive labor market over its employees And that's where unions are critical. But, getting back to my original point, it creates a "who's watching the watchers" situation. You don't have to look far to learn about the corruption in the Detroit UAW. The kickbacks made the national news. But, more importantly, after such a scandal do we really believe that the Detroit UAW was looking out for their members' best interests? That's why I firmly believe those kinds of unions need to be optional. Ultimately, employees in a captive labor market need to be able to effortlessly walk away from their union. It needs to be as simple as canceling a newspaper. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to have a "check and balance" if the union becomes corrupt.

pseudalopex 6y ago

Federal law prohibits making union membership a condition of employment. It also forces unions to represent non members. Alabama law says non members don't have to pay for the services a union is forced to provide them.