3 ms·

> Especially when you are union, thus generally pro gov't spending so are pushing everyone else to pay taxes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why woul

> Especially when you are union, thus generally pro gov't spending so are pushing everyone else to pay taxes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why would pro-union equal pro-government spending and also pro-higher taxes? They seem unrelated to each other.

pvarangot 5y ago
I don't know much about unions but that particular union in CA represents a lot of government employees. In San Francisco every union leader I talked to was also very pro-government spending, like usually the way they see problems getting solved is by the government spending more money on them, but my sample may be biased.
- 0xB31B1B 5y ago
  The people in the unions, and the leaders, are not "pro government spending" they are pro "the government spends money on me" it is a small but important difference.
  - mc32 5y ago
    That runs close to a distinction without a difference.
    - gizmo686 5y ago
      The government is a massive organization. Ignoring the cynical interperatation, it is entirely reasonable to think that there are some legitamate areas for the government to spend on; as long as the worker is in one of those areas, there is no dissonance. Alternativly, someone could think 'I want to work in industry X. I think X should be privatised, but since it is government run, I'll work for the government'. Further the cynical answer of 'the government shouldn't be spending so much money. But as long as they are, I should get some' isn't that bad of an answer
torben-friis 5y ago
Unions are a tool to contain and prevent abusive practices by companies in a free market. As a result, most union members are going to be pretty anti capitalist in nature, or at the very least against unregulated capitalism. They would much rather have the abusive practices they protest against banned. The alternatives to an unregulated free economy are either a state managed economy (communist style) or free-ish markets regulated by a government that sets the rules and limits the damages of the competition, by providing both regulations and safety nets (social democracy). both of those approaches require a strong state, which is were you get pro-government and pro-higher taxes. I guess you could, theoretically, have unions that see themselves as the only necessary opposition against companies' power in a free market, and which see no need for legal protection for their own activities. It's a weird middle point though, and I certainly have never seen a person hold those beliefs.
- Retric 5y ago
  The strongest unions tend to be government workers because without a free market they have the fewest options. Air traffic controllers work for the FAA or the do something else. Even when their are options like private prisons or schools, when the overwhelming majority of jobs are through a single entity individual employees simply have zero leverage.
  - torben-friis 5y ago
    Fair point, but for those cases it's pretty clear why they're pro government - they're it :)
    - Retric 5y ago
      For the unions it tends to be a very adversarial arrangement, though they will sometimes make nice to the press.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Regarding your last point,there's syndicalism, a political theory in which the main organizational unit of society is the union and there's little to no government, everything is negotiated between the different unions representing the various workers. It was somewhat popular around and after WWI, but is pretty much dead now.

pvarangot 5y ago

I don't know much about unions but that particular union in CA represents a lot of government employees. In San Francisco every union leader I talked to was also very pro-government spending, like usually the way they see problems getting solved is by the government spending more money on them, but my sample may be biased.

0xB31B1B 5y ago
The people in the unions, and the leaders, are not "pro government spending" they are pro "the government spends money on me" it is a small but important difference.
- mc32 5y ago
  That runs close to a distinction without a difference.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    The government is a massive organization. Ignoring the cynical interperatation, it is entirely reasonable to think that there are some legitamate areas for the government to spend on; as long as the worker is in one of those areas, there is no dissonance. Alternativly, someone could think 'I want to work in industry X. I think X should be privatised, but since it is government run, I'll work for the government'. Further the cynical answer of 'the government shouldn't be spending so much money. But as long as they are, I should get some' isn't that bad of an answer

torben-friis 5y ago

Unions are a tool to contain and prevent abusive practices by companies in a free market. As a result, most union members are going to be pretty anti capitalist in nature, or at the very least against unregulated capitalism. They would much rather have the abusive practices they protest against banned. The alternatives to an unregulated free economy are either a state managed economy (communist style) or free-ish markets regulated by a government that sets the rules and limits the damages of the competition, by providing both regulations and safety nets (social democracy). both of those approaches require a strong state, which is were you get pro-government and pro-higher taxes. I guess you could, theoretically, have unions that see themselves as the only necessary opposition against companies' power in a free market, and which see no need for legal protection for their own activities. It's a weird middle point though, and I certainly have never seen a person hold those beliefs.

Retric 5y ago
The strongest unions tend to be government workers because without a free market they have the fewest options. Air traffic controllers work for the FAA or the do something else. Even when their are options like private prisons or schools, when the overwhelming majority of jobs are through a single entity individual employees simply have zero leverage.
- torben-friis 5y ago
  Fair point, but for those cases it's pretty clear why they're pro government - they're it :)
  - Retric 5y ago
    For the unions it tends to be a very adversarial arrangement, though they will sometimes make nice to the press.
sofixa 5y ago
Regarding your last point,there's syndicalism, a political theory in which the main organizational unit of society is the union and there's little to no government, everything is negotiated between the different unions representing the various workers. It was somewhat popular around and after WWI, but is pretty much dead now.