4 ms·
I guess the issue is that if a union solely acts for the benefit of the workers, then it sets itself not only against the interests of the employer, but also ag
by jl6 5y ago
I guess the issue is that if a union solely acts for the benefit of the workers, then it sets itself not only against the interests of the employer, but also against the interests of the whole of the rest of society, who would benefit from the service being more efficient.
Hence the current situation where unions have an image problem.
Nobody likes seeing an abuse of power, whether the abuse is coming from the direction of the employer, or from the employee‘s union.
Game-theoretically, a smart union should refrain from unreasonable demands, because their long-term survival (and that of its members) is imperilled by public opinion turning against them.
- undersuit 5y agoI guess I shouldn't negotiate raises anymore at my job, wouldn't want to hurt the rest of society.
- rp1 5y agoUnless of course more workers belonged to unions, in which case more people would be sympathetic to the plight of the worker. These people are facing devastating job losses that will upend their families’ lives. Can you really blame them for putting up a fight? I’m ok with it, even if it means I need to wait a few weeks to import my forced-labor cotton shirts from Xinjiang.
- jl6 5y agoYou don’t need to be a union member to be sympathetic to workers’ issues - after all, nearly everyone is a worker. But nearly everyone is a stakeholder in the economy too, and solidarity has a limit, which can be breached when an action is widely perceived as unreasonable.