4 ms·

> 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 sta

> 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.

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.