9 ms·

> Competition applies to labor too, by the way Yes, which is why unions are great. Corporations bargain collectively by default; each is a large unit, with a

> Competition applies to labor too, by the way Yes, which is why unions are great. Corporations bargain collectively by default; each is a large unit, with a lot of resources, composed of many people. Unions allow individuals to bargain collectively, to match corporations in terms of leverage, because few individuals are valuable enough to even come close.

adam_arthur 4y ago
A union tends to be a monopoly on labor supply in most cases. Not a competitive labor market. Bargaining collectively = monopoly. They can raise wages up to the level of marginal profit of the employing company. Just the same as a company that's a monopoly could raise prices up to marginal value of the good to the customer. If the company can bypass the union to hire others, then it's not a monopoly. But if the union is influential enough this may not be possible. Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society, only those being paid beyond their individual market power. Raises cost of goods and lowers quality for the rest
- dontreact 4y ago
  Seems like there is a wide gap between a single company organizing a union for their employers and a monopoly on the labor supply. I would be more convinced by your point if this wasn't one of the first tech unions (according to headline).
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    It depends how it's structured. If Kickstarter can go and hire non union labor, then all is good. If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company. The company will die if they try to bypass the union. In this case they could distort compensation far above what a competitive market would bear, and consumers of Kickstarter eat the cost (e.g. broader society). It's definitely not a free lunch where workers get paid more and there's no societal cost, as many would like to believe
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      > If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company. This is no different from having to accept any other company policies. A company has a monopoly on its own policies, including whether joining a union is required.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        It's very different. Employees can join a different company. Companies can't magically become a different company. If they have a single union they are forced to work with, that union has monopoly power on labor supply. Good for union employees, bad for the rest of society
- bestcoder69 4y ago
  > Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society Real life on planet earth disagrees pretty hard with you. Google "___est countries". Pick a metric that shows policy impacts. Say, health, happiness, etc. The kind of metrics that aren't abstract BS and can't be cherry-picked. Pick the first, say, five. Then look up their unionization rates. I'll spoil it for you. Nordic countries win (it doesn't even matter the metric lol... they even top CATO institute freedom rankings somehow). They have massive levels of unionization. Finland has unionized entire sectors of the economy. Counter-examples welcome. But say "GDP" and I'll show up at your house and throw a pie in your face.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    It's a good thing Europe can mooch off US innovation and Chinese manufacturing. Manufacturing that is not unionized, by the way. If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run. What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bestcoder69 4y ago
      > If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run. IRL datapoints > counterfactuals: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/nordic-state-innovation/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/nordic-state-i... Also I said "Google it" for a reason. You picked an abstract one, and Sweden still beat us! And who could have guessed (me!), but Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland sit there in the top 10 as well :) [0] > What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized? You're not only dodging my point, but your own. You asked what was best for society. 0: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008.html https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008... e: Man the "mooching" argument, in this context specifically, is really gonna stick with me. In a work meeting once, someone with knowledge said that each engineer in my org was earning the company $1.5-3 million. This is against a ~$200k salary. This is kind of subjective, but as an """innovator""", the idea that Finland is the one mooching off me is _hilarious_. I'm not gonna comment on what I "deserve" though because dessert theory isn't sound anyway.
- lupire 4y ago
  What do you think society is made of, if not people?
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Unions benefit the people in the union at the expense of the rest of society. There is no free lunch; when somebody gets paid more, that money comes from somewhere else
busterarm 4y ago
> Corporations bargain collectively by default; Only with unskilled labor. My profession is skilled and the skillset is in demand and hard to find. I bargain for myself, thanks. I have repeatedly and at length discussed on HN about my 3 separate union membership experiences and how I will never again repeat them.
- xibo9 4y ago
  "unskilled labor" What an extremely elitist phrase.
  - totony 4y ago
    Do you have a better term for it?
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      "labor" and "job"
    - triceratops 4y ago
      High-paid/low-paid labor?
      - totony 4y ago
        Skill is a proxy for supply whereas pay is a proxy of supply-demand. It might actually be a better term, since even if you do very skilled labor, you would prefer an union if there was no demand.
      - bpodgursky 4y ago
        This is a terrible substitute, since there are a lot of low-paid high-skill jobs (ex, graduate students, TAs). There's a meaningful labor liquidity difference between a job that takes 2 years of training and 2 days of training, and it's important for policy decisions. Sorry?

adam_arthur 4y ago

A union tends to be a monopoly on labor supply in most cases. Not a competitive labor market. Bargaining collectively = monopoly. They can raise wages up to the level of marginal profit of the employing company. Just the same as a company that's a monopoly could raise prices up to marginal value of the good to the customer. If the company can bypass the union to hire others, then it's not a monopoly. But if the union is influential enough this may not be possible. Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society, only those being paid beyond their individual market power. Raises cost of goods and lowers quality for the rest

dontreact 4y ago
Seems like there is a wide gap between a single company organizing a union for their employers and a monopoly on the labor supply. I would be more convinced by your point if this wasn't one of the first tech unions (according to headline).
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  It depends how it's structured. If Kickstarter can go and hire non union labor, then all is good. If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company. The company will die if they try to bypass the union. In this case they could distort compensation far above what a competitive market would bear, and consumers of Kickstarter eat the cost (e.g. broader society). It's definitely not a free lunch where workers get paid more and there's no societal cost, as many would like to believe
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    > If the whole union will quit unanimously if they do that, then they have effective monopoly power over labor for the company. This is no different from having to accept any other company policies. A company has a monopoly on its own policies, including whether joining a union is required.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      It's very different. Employees can join a different company. Companies can't magically become a different company. If they have a single union they are forced to work with, that union has monopoly power on labor supply. Good for union employees, bad for the rest of society
bestcoder69 4y ago
> Distorted wages for labor is not good for broader society Real life on planet earth disagrees pretty hard with you. Google "___est countries". Pick a metric that shows policy impacts. Say, health, happiness, etc. The kind of metrics that aren't abstract BS and can't be cherry-picked. Pick the first, say, five. Then look up their unionization rates. I'll spoil it for you. Nordic countries win (it doesn't even matter the metric lol... they even top CATO institute freedom rankings somehow). They have massive levels of unionization. Finland has unionized entire sectors of the economy. Counter-examples welcome. But say "GDP" and I'll show up at your house and throw a pie in your face.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  It's a good thing Europe can mooch off US innovation and Chinese manufacturing. Manufacturing that is not unionized, by the way. If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run. What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bestcoder69 4y ago
    > If the US went the way of Europe, technological innovation would slow dramatically, which I'll argue is a bad outcome for the world in the long run. IRL datapoints > counterfactuals: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/nordic-state-innovation/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/nordic-state-i... Also I said "Google it" for a reason. You picked an abstract one, and Sweden still beat us! And who could have guessed (me!), but Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland sit there in the top 10 as well :) [0] > What do you think the cost of basic goods would rise to if all the Chinese manufacturing centers unionized? You're not only dodging my point, but your own. You asked what was best for society. 0: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008.html https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008... e: Man the "mooching" argument, in this context specifically, is really gonna stick with me. In a work meeting once, someone with knowledge said that each engineer in my org was earning the company $1.5-3 million. This is against a ~$200k salary. This is kind of subjective, but as an """innovator""", the idea that Finland is the one mooching off me is _hilarious_. I'm not gonna comment on what I "deserve" though because dessert theory isn't sound anyway.
lupire 4y ago
What do you think society is made of, if not people?
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Unions benefit the people in the union at the expense of the rest of society. There is no free lunch; when somebody gets paid more, that money comes from somewhere else

busterarm 4y ago

> Corporations bargain collectively by default; Only with unskilled labor. My profession is skilled and the skillset is in demand and hard to find. I bargain for myself, thanks. I have repeatedly and at length discussed on HN about my 3 separate union membership experiences and how I will never again repeat them.

xibo9 4y ago
"unskilled labor" What an extremely elitist phrase.
- totony 4y ago
  Do you have a better term for it?
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    "labor" and "job"
  - triceratops 4y ago
    High-paid/low-paid labor?
    - totony 4y ago
      Skill is a proxy for supply whereas pay is a proxy of supply-demand. It might actually be a better term, since even if you do very skilled labor, you would prefer an union if there was no demand.
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      This is a terrible substitute, since there are a lot of low-paid high-skill jobs (ex, graduate students, TAs). There's a meaningful labor liquidity difference between a job that takes 2 years of training and 2 days of training, and it's important for policy decisions. Sorry?