5 ms·

Anti-union is not anti-labor. Unionization makes it harder for those not employed in an industry to get their foot in the door, by reducing turnover, and by red

Anti-union is not anti-labor. Unionization makes it harder for those not employed in an industry to get their foot in the door, by reducing turnover, and by reducing the growth of jobs produced by the industry.

mjmahone17 4y ago
Why would unions reduce the growth of jobs? By default unions want more workers, by ensuring things like 40 hour weeks and overtime pay (to encourage companies to hire more people). I could see if some unions want to limit membership in case pre-existing union membership is required to be hired, but at that point it’s the trade association aspect of the trade union that’s the problem. But you can probably solve this by allowing other unions in the same trade, so that unions that are too closed end up having to compete with unions that train enough people to do more work. Maybe there’s a reason this doesn’t work that I’m not seeing though?
- ETH_start 4y ago
  >>Why would unions reduce the growth of jobs Because they reduce the profitability of firms, and thereby reduce investment in expanding production. This is a long-observed effect: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1992.tb00299.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-232X....
  - wahern 4y ago
    I'm sure it's a long-observed correlation, but corporate anti-union sentiment could easily explain much if not all of that effect. Try translating it to a situation like Germany, where AFAIU industrial labor (union and non-union) has thrived across the board, at least relative to the U.S. (U.S. has still has a strong industrial base in GDP terms, but even where unions are non existent its share of the labor market has been in a long decline much steeper than in places where unions are stronger generally.) I'm looking for a legal source for reading the paper but not finding any. (e.g. not in JSTOR.) Can you say how they came to their conclusion--does it specifically show causality or is it simply an observational correlation that neatly matches predictions from a classical economic perspective? I guess in some ways I'm splitting hairs, because if U.S. corporate sentiment is inherently anti-union, then the logic behind investment strategies is simply their logic, whether it's a necessary in some universal sense or not. And if we're not going to peek behind the curtains, there's nothing else to say. But it does matter when discussing what's possible for U.S. labor markets given sufficiently comprehensive cultural change. Racism is endemic and systemic, there are no simple solutions, yet we don't simply stand back and say, "it is what it is, there's nothing we can do about it". (Well, some people say that, but it's not generally considered an honest assessment.) Neither do we say that inducing change would lead to a more inefficient economy, even when there's some evidence showing policy-induced disruptions and dislocations with negative effects. The nearly universal assumption is that improved social equity (as a general matter; obviously we have trouble agreeing on the meaning of that nebulous concept, but few honestly reduce it to merely meaning "whatever the market produces") would result in a more efficient economy and more productivity, we just need to do a better job of it and work harder at threading the needle. It turns out that there are many "naturally" arising power disparities between employee and employer that result in rather inefficient labor system equilibriums, slavery and serfdom being the most obvious, if extreme, cases.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      >>I'm sure it's a long-observed correlation, but corporate anti-union sentiment could easily explain much if not all of that effect. I recommend you look at the literature. There's been a lot of good studies on this and it shows that there is a causative link as far as one can be uncovered in any social science. And if there is such strong anti-union sentiment among corporations that means unions are not good for shareholders and that means that unionization is going to reduce shareholder profits which is invariably going to have the effect of reducing investment.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
KerrAvon 4y ago
Anti-union is anti—labor; to say otherwise is to be ignorant of the history of labor in the USA during the 20th century. Unionization generally does not make it harder to get a foot in the door, so long as you’re willing to join the union. Unions want more members; members are their source of power and money. Is a union appropriate for all jobs? Not necessarily! But construction work? Yes please.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Don't confuse a narrative with history. Unionization reduces turnover, which makes it harder to get a job in the unionized industry. Compare getting a job as a Port of LA longshoreman ($140,000 year with benefits) vs getting a job as a Starbucks barista. It also reduces the rate at which industries expand, which further increases the difficulty of securing a job in the industry.
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    You're focusing on ease of getting a job with a particular employer to the exclusion of all else. If you want to make an argument that one thing is better or worse than another, go ahead, but do it by comparing the positives to the negatives, not just by pointing out one single negative.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    You're right. Unionization reduces competition in the workforce. That's kind of the whole point of them. If unions tried to create a healthy competitive labor market, their bargaining power would be reduced. I'm not sure why this is controversial to point out.
    - vba616 4y ago
      I have read that orthodox anti-trust theory in the US in more or less "modern" times holds that anti-competitive behavior by corporations is a problem only if it has a negative effect on consumers. You could debate whether this is the correct value system, and some people certainly do; you could consider impacts on other people besides consumers, or just feel that anything inhibiting competition is wrong in principle. Go to another country, or back in time decades, and people think/thought differently. But my point is, that I think the orthodox answer to "is anticompetitive behavior by corporations bad" is "it depends". And therefore I would expect a conventional wisdom type answer to "is anticompetitive behavior by organizations representing workers bad" to also be "it depends". Taking the position that it's always bad, even if you are only considering the customers, would seem odd to me and need an explanation.
rayiner 4y ago
Unions are also racist, because they invariably favor seniority and thus older white workers over younger minority workers. In Chicago, the mayor refused to commit to reducing the police force, observing that under union “first in first out” rules, most of the people let go would be Black and Hispanic.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  > Unions are also racist, because they invariably favor seniority and thus older white workers over younger minority workers. That is the most valiant effort I have seen around here to apply the actual definition of racism bluntly, however that is not how it works. You deserve a gold star for getting close, though.

mjmahone17 4y ago

Why would unions reduce the growth of jobs? By default unions want more workers, by ensuring things like 40 hour weeks and overtime pay (to encourage companies to hire more people). I could see if some unions want to limit membership in case pre-existing union membership is required to be hired, but at that point it’s the trade association aspect of the trade union that’s the problem. But you can probably solve this by allowing other unions in the same trade, so that unions that are too closed end up having to compete with unions that train enough people to do more work. Maybe there’s a reason this doesn’t work that I’m not seeing though?

ETH_start 4y ago
>>Why would unions reduce the growth of jobs Because they reduce the profitability of firms, and thereby reduce investment in expanding production. This is a long-observed effect: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1992.tb00299.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-232X....
- wahern 4y ago
  I'm sure it's a long-observed correlation, but corporate anti-union sentiment could easily explain much if not all of that effect. Try translating it to a situation like Germany, where AFAIU industrial labor (union and non-union) has thrived across the board, at least relative to the U.S. (U.S. has still has a strong industrial base in GDP terms, but even where unions are non existent its share of the labor market has been in a long decline much steeper than in places where unions are stronger generally.) I'm looking for a legal source for reading the paper but not finding any. (e.g. not in JSTOR.) Can you say how they came to their conclusion--does it specifically show causality or is it simply an observational correlation that neatly matches predictions from a classical economic perspective? I guess in some ways I'm splitting hairs, because if U.S. corporate sentiment is inherently anti-union, then the logic behind investment strategies is simply their logic, whether it's a necessary in some universal sense or not. And if we're not going to peek behind the curtains, there's nothing else to say. But it does matter when discussing what's possible for U.S. labor markets given sufficiently comprehensive cultural change. Racism is endemic and systemic, there are no simple solutions, yet we don't simply stand back and say, "it is what it is, there's nothing we can do about it". (Well, some people say that, but it's not generally considered an honest assessment.) Neither do we say that inducing change would lead to a more inefficient economy, even when there's some evidence showing policy-induced disruptions and dislocations with negative effects. The nearly universal assumption is that improved social equity (as a general matter; obviously we have trouble agreeing on the meaning of that nebulous concept, but few honestly reduce it to merely meaning "whatever the market produces") would result in a more efficient economy and more productivity, we just need to do a better job of it and work harder at threading the needle. It turns out that there are many "naturally" arising power disparities between employee and employer that result in rather inefficient labor system equilibriums, slavery and serfdom being the most obvious, if extreme, cases.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    >>I'm sure it's a long-observed correlation, but corporate anti-union sentiment could easily explain much if not all of that effect. I recommend you look at the literature. There's been a lot of good studies on this and it shows that there is a causative link as far as one can be uncovered in any social science. And if there is such strong anti-union sentiment among corporations that means unions are not good for shareholders and that means that unionization is going to reduce shareholder profits which is invariably going to have the effect of reducing investment.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

KerrAvon 4y ago

Anti-union is anti—labor; to say otherwise is to be ignorant of the history of labor in the USA during the 20th century. Unionization generally does not make it harder to get a foot in the door, so long as you’re willing to join the union. Unions want more members; members are their source of power and money. Is a union appropriate for all jobs? Not necessarily! But construction work? Yes please.

ETH_start 4y ago
Don't confuse a narrative with history. Unionization reduces turnover, which makes it harder to get a job in the unionized industry. Compare getting a job as a Port of LA longshoreman ($140,000 year with benefits) vs getting a job as a Starbucks barista. It also reduces the rate at which industries expand, which further increases the difficulty of securing a job in the industry.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  You're focusing on ease of getting a job with a particular employer to the exclusion of all else. If you want to make an argument that one thing is better or worse than another, go ahead, but do it by comparing the positives to the negatives, not just by pointing out one single negative.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  You're right. Unionization reduces competition in the workforce. That's kind of the whole point of them. If unions tried to create a healthy competitive labor market, their bargaining power would be reduced. I'm not sure why this is controversial to point out.
  - vba616 4y ago
    I have read that orthodox anti-trust theory in the US in more or less "modern" times holds that anti-competitive behavior by corporations is a problem only if it has a negative effect on consumers. You could debate whether this is the correct value system, and some people certainly do; you could consider impacts on other people besides consumers, or just feel that anything inhibiting competition is wrong in principle. Go to another country, or back in time decades, and people think/thought differently. But my point is, that I think the orthodox answer to "is anticompetitive behavior by corporations bad" is "it depends". And therefore I would expect a conventional wisdom type answer to "is anticompetitive behavior by organizations representing workers bad" to also be "it depends". Taking the position that it's always bad, even if you are only considering the customers, would seem odd to me and need an explanation.

rayiner 4y ago

Unions are also racist, because they invariably favor seniority and thus older white workers over younger minority workers. In Chicago, the mayor refused to commit to reducing the police force, observing that under union “first in first out” rules, most of the people let go would be Black and Hispanic.

spacemanmatt 4y ago
> Unions are also racist, because they invariably favor seniority and thus older white workers over younger minority workers. That is the most valiant effort I have seen around here to apply the actual definition of racism bluntly, however that is not how it works. You deserve a gold star for getting close, though.