3 ms·

It is amazing that unions get a legal monopoly in this manner, and it is not surprising that, with such rights, they fail their constituents, preferring to amas

It is amazing that unions get a legal monopoly in this manner, and it is not surprising that, with such rights, they fail their constituents, preferring to amass money and power for a corrupt leadership. Imagine a world with two or three unions per employer and you could actually pick which one you were under. They’d actually have incentives to deliver! But we’ll never have that because it means less lobbying money and smaller campaign contributions to our representatives in government.

whimsicalism 5y ago
This is a bad idea for a number of different reasons. I'll highlight one. The actual "competition" wouldn't be among which union the employees joined - rather they would compete to undercut each other on contract negotiation, which would only bolster the employer's hand. There are good reasons why this is not common practice - but there is also no law preventing multiple unions.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Unions are competing both for contracts with employers, but also for employees among other unions. If Union A is demanding but gives good pay, Union B is more laid back but has less reward, and Union C is both demanding and gives poor bay then it will fail as A or B grows. If there are no competing unions and you're in union C, then you've got no options but to quit or try and topple the union (impossible, effectively).
wadefletch 5y ago
Aren't a bunch of little unions equivalent to independent employees advocating their own interests?
- solidsnack9000 5y ago
  Maybe not, because (a) each union can still aggregate the interests of hundreds or thousands of workers and (b) it's much easier for a few unions to collaborate with each other than for hundreds or thousands of individual workers to do so. This depends, of course, on how exactly the new unions are allowed to form. It seems unlikely that the NLRB would implement policy in a way that allows dozens of unions, each with a handful of workers; but I guess if that happened, it would end up just like what you're saying.
solidsnack9000 5y ago
In recent years, some decisions from the NLRB are leaning in the direction of multiple unions: https://laborblog.vorys.com/2014/07/articles/nlrb/how-many-unions-can-your-workplace-support https://laborblog.vorys.com/2014/07/articles/nlrb/how-many-u... The idea is that different kinds of workers could be in different unions. A department store might have, for example, cosmetics specialists, tailors, accounting staff and so on; and these groups are distinct enough, from the NLRB's perspective, to have their own unions.

whimsicalism 5y ago

This is a bad idea for a number of different reasons. I'll highlight one. The actual "competition" wouldn't be among which union the employees joined - rather they would compete to undercut each other on contract negotiation, which would only bolster the employer's hand. There are good reasons why this is not common practice - but there is also no law preventing multiple unions.

Manuel_D 5y ago
Unions are competing both for contracts with employers, but also for employees among other unions. If Union A is demanding but gives good pay, Union B is more laid back but has less reward, and Union C is both demanding and gives poor bay then it will fail as A or B grows. If there are no competing unions and you're in union C, then you've got no options but to quit or try and topple the union (impossible, effectively).

wadefletch 5y ago

Aren't a bunch of little unions equivalent to independent employees advocating their own interests?

solidsnack9000 5y ago
Maybe not, because (a) each union can still aggregate the interests of hundreds or thousands of workers and (b) it's much easier for a few unions to collaborate with each other than for hundreds or thousands of individual workers to do so. This depends, of course, on how exactly the new unions are allowed to form. It seems unlikely that the NLRB would implement policy in a way that allows dozens of unions, each with a handful of workers; but I guess if that happened, it would end up just like what you're saying.

solidsnack9000 5y ago

In recent years, some decisions from the NLRB are leaning in the direction of multiple unions: https://laborblog.vorys.com/2014/07/articles/nlrb/how-many-unions-can-your-workplace-support https://laborblog.vorys.com/2014/07/articles/nlrb/how-many-u... The idea is that different kinds of workers could be in different unions. A department store might have, for example, cosmetics specialists, tailors, accounting staff and so on; and these groups are distinct enough, from the NLRB's perspective, to have their own unions.