6 ms·

This is why the "right vs left" style of thinking drives me crazy. Unions are constantly doing evil things, usually for the same greedy and power-hungry reason

by floor2 5y ago

This is why the "right vs left" style of thinking drives me crazy. Unions are constantly doing evil things, usually for the same greedy and power-hungry reasons as any corporate board, and to the same detriment of society at large, but because we think of unions as being on "our side" and latch onto this romanticized notion of the unions of the 1800s they get a pass. The police and prison guard unions constantly do horrible things to increase incarceration rates, erode civil rights and remove accountability. Labor unions fight against improvements that would make their industries pollute less if it makes their jobs harder or would replace union-dues-paying members with technology or non-union jobs. And they constantly create artificial monopolies and cartels far worse than any of the corporate behavior, which create situations like the pilot unions where senior pilots get huge salaries and cushy routes while entry-level pilots are treated like slaves, or where you're not allowed to plug in your laptop charger to a wall outlet because only a union electrician can touch it. I wish society was better at recognizing "this group is harming society for the benefit of themselves" can be applied everywhere- corporations, unions, branches of government, etc

WalterBright 5y ago
Unions are simply businesses that make labor available to companies. Any notion that they are something different from a business is mistaken. Attempts by unions to use government to make themselves legal monopolies are just as bad as any other business using government to do that.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Let me know the next time I can vote to have my CEO replaced, thanks :)
  - moftz 5y ago
    In an employee owned corporation, you would get some say in leadership. Although it's possible that in a large enough corporation, it would be an indirect democracy. You vote for board members who vote for the company leadership.
    - lovich 5y ago
      While various municipalities and nations might classify co-ops as corporations legal wise, I don’t think the average person jumps to thinking of a co-op when you say corporation
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    You can vote your shares.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Check the agenda for your next shareholder meeting. You're welcome :)
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Most shareholder elections don't have a yes/no vote on the CEO - and I work for a wholly owned subsidiary, so have no say in that either.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        You're always free to invest directly in your parent company. Shareholders hold tremendous power over company management, and that power increases the more you invest in the company. This gives large or organized shareholders at least as much democratic power as union members have over their entrenched leaders. Your question made it seem as though you didn't understand that.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  There's a difference between unions and staffing agencies.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Not fundamentally, though there are legal differences.
whimsicalism 5y ago
It's not nearly as symmetric as you're making it out to be. In terms of overall welfare, an additional dollar in the pocket of a typical union worker is going to be more welfare enhancing than that additional dollar in the pocket of the typical owner. This is from just basic diminishing marginal utility of the dollar. Of course, unions can do awful, evil things - they are organizations of people and people are petty, self-centered, greedy, etc. I'm in favor of workers' ability to elect someone to represent them at the negotiation table (because that is what a union is). I'm not unaware that sometimes those workers can elect bad people. I'm also in favor of electoral democracy, even if I wouldn't personally defend every single person who has been elected president since the start of time.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  > In terms of overall welfare, an additional dollar in the pocket of a typical union worker is going to be more welfare enhancing than that additional dollar in the pocket of the typical owner. This is from just basic diminishing marginal utility of the dollar. Remarkably few people seem to truly understand what "marginal propensity to consume" actually means. Economically, money saved is money lost. Money invested is a promise of debt. Consumption is what drives the economy. That's why the poor and middle class are so important. Without them having enough money, the economics of scale... don't scale.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I'll admit while I'm inclined to believe that it's better to distribute money to workers rather than investors, I don't understand the economic mechanics that makes this true. I do understand that the rich aren't gong to spend as much as the middle and lower classes, but I don't have a good answer for the predictable trickle-down rebuttal: the wealthy will invest rather than spend, and that investment funds jobs which put money in the pockets of the poor (but perhaps more so in the pockets of the rich?). You sort of touch on that: "consumption is what drives the economy", but I think the trickle-down economics folks would agree and argue that their job-creation-via-investment results in increased consumption? I have a headache.
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
Unions are distributional coalitions. They try to allocate more resources to their members than they would receive otherwise. The source for this surplus is the rest of society. In other words, they are cartels. It should not be surprising that some of them are managed by organised crime. Be it through negotiating salaries or restricting the number of doctors or enforcing very difficult admission procedures for lawyers. They tend to also effect other, non-zero-sum game advantages, or otherwise they would probably be outlawed, but this is the gist of it. You can still acknowledge that many were founded with good intentions, but people who do not see at least some downsides have a severe reasoning defect.
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
Right to association is a fundamental American value something that American conservatives must value and something that Libertarians have always valued. There is no argument that employees should have the right to form an association. The problems arise when such associations get "special privileges" that an average worker does not. Both L and R talk a lot about "equality of law" but happily shred that principle when it comes to their own voter groups. Nearly all the evil (as you describe it) caused by unions is eventually due to the collective bargaining rights and other privileges. In the words of Milton Friedman, unions do not protect workers. The competition protects workers. Market competition is the biggest rival to unions and hence unions will go to extreme lengths to prevent this sort of competition to keep themselves relevant. This does immense harm to workers as well as society in the long term. Folks like me who have seen extreme violence unleashed by workers unions end up despising very notion of unions for the same reason.

by floor2 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

Unions are simply businesses that make labor available to companies. Any notion that they are something different from a business is mistaken. Attempts by unions to use government to make themselves legal monopolies are just as bad as any other business using government to do that.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Let me know the next time I can vote to have my CEO replaced, thanks :)
- moftz 5y ago
  In an employee owned corporation, you would get some say in leadership. Although it's possible that in a large enough corporation, it would be an indirect democracy. You vote for board members who vote for the company leadership.
  - lovich 5y ago
    While various municipalities and nations might classify co-ops as corporations legal wise, I don’t think the average person jumps to thinking of a co-op when you say corporation
- WalterBright 5y ago
  You can vote your shares.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Check the agenda for your next shareholder meeting. You're welcome :)
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Most shareholder elections don't have a yes/no vote on the CEO - and I work for a wholly owned subsidiary, so have no say in that either.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      You're always free to invest directly in your parent company. Shareholders hold tremendous power over company management, and that power increases the more you invest in the company. This gives large or organized shareholders at least as much democratic power as union members have over their entrenched leaders. Your question made it seem as though you didn't understand that.
heavyset_go 5y ago
There's a difference between unions and staffing agencies.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Not fundamentally, though there are legal differences.

whimsicalism 5y ago

It's not nearly as symmetric as you're making it out to be. In terms of overall welfare, an additional dollar in the pocket of a typical union worker is going to be more welfare enhancing than that additional dollar in the pocket of the typical owner. This is from just basic diminishing marginal utility of the dollar. Of course, unions can do awful, evil things - they are organizations of people and people are petty, self-centered, greedy, etc. I'm in favor of workers' ability to elect someone to represent them at the negotiation table (because that is what a union is). I'm not unaware that sometimes those workers can elect bad people. I'm also in favor of electoral democracy, even if I wouldn't personally defend every single person who has been elected president since the start of time.

da_chicken 5y ago
> In terms of overall welfare, an additional dollar in the pocket of a typical union worker is going to be more welfare enhancing than that additional dollar in the pocket of the typical owner. This is from just basic diminishing marginal utility of the dollar. Remarkably few people seem to truly understand what "marginal propensity to consume" actually means. Economically, money saved is money lost. Money invested is a promise of debt. Consumption is what drives the economy. That's why the poor and middle class are so important. Without them having enough money, the economics of scale... don't scale.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'll admit while I'm inclined to believe that it's better to distribute money to workers rather than investors, I don't understand the economic mechanics that makes this true. I do understand that the rich aren't gong to spend as much as the middle and lower classes, but I don't have a good answer for the predictable trickle-down rebuttal: the wealthy will invest rather than spend, and that investment funds jobs which put money in the pockets of the poor (but perhaps more so in the pockets of the rich?). You sort of touch on that: "consumption is what drives the economy", but I think the trickle-down economics folks would agree and argue that their job-creation-via-investment results in increased consumption? I have a headache.

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

Unions are distributional coalitions. They try to allocate more resources to their members than they would receive otherwise. The source for this surplus is the rest of society. In other words, they are cartels. It should not be surprising that some of them are managed by organised crime. Be it through negotiating salaries or restricting the number of doctors or enforcing very difficult admission procedures for lawyers. They tend to also effect other, non-zero-sum game advantages, or otherwise they would probably be outlawed, but this is the gist of it. You can still acknowledge that many were founded with good intentions, but people who do not see at least some downsides have a severe reasoning defect.

KorematsuFredt 5y ago

Right to association is a fundamental American value something that American conservatives must value and something that Libertarians have always valued. There is no argument that employees should have the right to form an association. The problems arise when such associations get "special privileges" that an average worker does not. Both L and R talk a lot about "equality of law" but happily shred that principle when it comes to their own voter groups. Nearly all the evil (as you describe it) caused by unions is eventually due to the collective bargaining rights and other privileges. In the words of Milton Friedman, unions do not protect workers. The competition protects workers. Market competition is the biggest rival to unions and hence unions will go to extreme lengths to prevent this sort of competition to keep themselves relevant. This does immense harm to workers as well as society in the long term. Folks like me who have seen extreme violence unleashed by workers unions end up despising very notion of unions for the same reason.