4 ms·

>> The fact that companies can overtly introduce laws for their own benefit and directly advertise to voters is both disgusting and an improvement on the feder

>> The fact that companies can overtly introduce laws for their own benefit and directly advertise to voters is both disgusting and an improvement on the federal system of lobbying and campaign finance. > Why exactly is it OK for unions to do the same, then? Egalitarianism. Equating corporate businesses with worker unions is a false equivalence, since ownership and wealth can be concentrated, but labor cannot. Gains made by unions on behalf of workers can be spread more broadly through the population, while gains made by corporations are typically concentrated among an elite (and become more and more concentrated with increasing status). Now, someone will probably retort with something about prices, but there's a limit to how much a worker can benefit from lower prices when they come from pressure on labor. There's also a limit to how much a worker can benefit from penny-ante shareholding.

syshum 5y ago
Your point assumes that unions only work for workers History proves that to be a false assumption. Unions are a corporition like any other. They are driven by the need to increase their own power and profit. They do that by increasing the nber of workers that are required by law to pay them dues even if the worker does not want or support the unions political goals See the teachers union as a prime example
thereisnospork 5y ago
If labor can collectively lobby the government it is only fair for 'management' to lobby collectively as well.[0] Arguing otherwise is hardly egalitarian, just cheerleading. [0]A system where neither can collectively lobby might be best, but alas...
- pessimizer 5y ago
  This is a declaration, not an argument. There's no rule that says the relationship between management and workers has to be symmetrical, and if there were such a rule, then workers should demand access to all of the books and get to sit in on all of the meetings.
  - thereisnospork 5y ago
    Egalitarian is the parent's argument, not mine, all I did was clarify the definition -- which is, as you so adroitly pointed out, a statement. I also did not refer to the relationship between workers and management but to both's respective relationship to the government, which is not egalitarian if not symmetrical.
CamperBob2 5y ago
Equating corporate businesses with worker unions is a false equivalence, since ownership and wealth can be concentrated, but labor cannot. Just as a thought experiment, let's say labor could be concentrated like wealth. If it could be, how would we measure it? Wouldn't the units simply be those of productivity? More work getting done -- or more precisely, more value being created -- with fewer workers? It seems intuitively true that this is a desirable goal for society to strive for, not a problematic condition to be remedied. Unionization tries to guarantee a steady position for every worker, but if it does so equitably, the effect will be to dilute the labor pool rather than concentrating it. Is this really a progressive value? More concretely, it can be surmised that every time unions attempt to organize labor in Amazon warehouses, the company responds by increasing the funding for robotics R&D. Is this seen as a good thing or a bad thing in labor circles? Obviously it's seen as a bad thing... but the assumption that this view is somehow morally and socially correct doesn't get challenged anywhere near often enough.

syshum 5y ago

Your point assumes that unions only work for workers History proves that to be a false assumption. Unions are a corporition like any other. They are driven by the need to increase their own power and profit. They do that by increasing the nber of workers that are required by law to pay them dues even if the worker does not want or support the unions political goals See the teachers union as a prime example

thereisnospork 5y ago

If labor can collectively lobby the government it is only fair for 'management' to lobby collectively as well.[0] Arguing otherwise is hardly egalitarian, just cheerleading. [0]A system where neither can collectively lobby might be best, but alas...

pessimizer 5y ago
This is a declaration, not an argument. There's no rule that says the relationship between management and workers has to be symmetrical, and if there were such a rule, then workers should demand access to all of the books and get to sit in on all of the meetings.
- thereisnospork 5y ago
  Egalitarian is the parent's argument, not mine, all I did was clarify the definition -- which is, as you so adroitly pointed out, a statement. I also did not refer to the relationship between workers and management but to both's respective relationship to the government, which is not egalitarian if not symmetrical.

CamperBob2 5y ago

Equating corporate businesses with worker unions is a false equivalence, since ownership and wealth can be concentrated, but labor cannot. Just as a thought experiment, let's say labor could be concentrated like wealth. If it could be, how would we measure it? Wouldn't the units simply be those of productivity? More work getting done -- or more precisely, more value being created -- with fewer workers? It seems intuitively true that this is a desirable goal for society to strive for, not a problematic condition to be remedied. Unionization tries to guarantee a steady position for every worker, but if it does so equitably, the effect will be to dilute the labor pool rather than concentrating it. Is this really a progressive value? More concretely, it can be surmised that every time unions attempt to organize labor in Amazon warehouses, the company responds by increasing the funding for robotics R&D. Is this seen as a good thing or a bad thing in labor circles? Obviously it's seen as a bad thing... but the assumption that this view is somehow morally and socially correct doesn't get challenged anywhere near often enough.