3 ms·

Proponents of unions seem not understand that unions only exist to enrich existing members and not benefit society, future members, the profession, or anything

Proponents of unions seem not understand that unions only exist to enrich existing members and not benefit society, future members, the profession, or anything else. There's a reason why new teachers, doing the same job with the same title, make less than half of what teachers with seniority do. There's a reason why many unions use credentialing as a way to restrict the free market and the only way new people can join is through nepotism. Do unions proivde some benefits? Sure. Certainly the threat of a union can also provide said benefits. But unions, like all centralized power structures, eventually become corrupt and end up doing harm at the cost of protecting a small group.

palmetieri2000 5y ago
This is just outright not true on a global level, maybe in the US, but even then it seems unlikely. Many of the actions a union will take will do things that do not just 'enrich' its members. Here in Australia, unions will often use their organisational power to lobby government for things like increased safety standards, fair treatment for workers regarding discrimination or after an injury, maternity leave etc. I dont know if you can call keeping your salary during a a time of hardship 'enrichment'. Further, in Australia we have something called an enterprise agreement (or an 'award' depending), which all workers whom fill the description of the task automatically fall under, this sets the minimum salaries, expected working hours, penalty rates for holiday work, etc. When the government (usually at the behest of an industry or company) wishes to alter the EA, they must negotiate with the union whom will act on behalf of the workers covered by the EA to argue for their desired changes (or things that shouldn't change). These changes are then applied to everyone who works under that EA, union or not. So, here at least, most workers passively benefit from union activity. Caveat: Probably not 100% correct with minutia of EA and awards, been a while since I took the class that covered this.

palmetieri2000 5y ago

This is just outright not true on a global level, maybe in the US, but even then it seems unlikely. Many of the actions a union will take will do things that do not just 'enrich' its members. Here in Australia, unions will often use their organisational power to lobby government for things like increased safety standards, fair treatment for workers regarding discrimination or after an injury, maternity leave etc. I dont know if you can call keeping your salary during a a time of hardship 'enrichment'. Further, in Australia we have something called an enterprise agreement (or an 'award' depending), which all workers whom fill the description of the task automatically fall under, this sets the minimum salaries, expected working hours, penalty rates for holiday work, etc. When the government (usually at the behest of an industry or company) wishes to alter the EA, they must negotiate with the union whom will act on behalf of the workers covered by the EA to argue for their desired changes (or things that shouldn't change). These changes are then applied to everyone who works under that EA, union or not. So, here at least, most workers passively benefit from union activity. Caveat: Probably not 100% correct with minutia of EA and awards, been a while since I took the class that covered this.