5 ms·

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 i

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.
    - atoav 4y ago
      For me it is simple: the corporation always works for it's own benefit without considering other merits. This means it is reasonable to have other institutions that defend other merits (privacy, the environment, worker rights, ...) Worker rights make it harder for corporations to extract money from the work, but leave more money with the workers. If the union goes in too much, they endanger the existence of the corporation (which will not benefit the workers they represent) so a balance forms that makes corporations more efficient.at paying workers, but less efficient at funneling money to shareholders.
      - vba616 4y ago
        >the corporation always works for it's own benefit without considering other merits I agree with you that regulation is required, but I don't agree with you in that I think a completely amoral corporation unconstrained by human values is non-viable no matter what external regulation exists. Historically, I don't believe people invented collective organizations to be pure and ruthless optimizers, and I think capitalism breaks down if it evolves towards the standard caricature by its enemies. Regulation can never be perfect enough to substitute for basic decency. It never was, so nobody knows how to do that. Similarly, I think, to trying to substitute computer code for contracts.
- vba616 4y ago
  It seems to me that any job paying $140K is a lot harder to get than something near minimum wage, so it's not all that obvious to me that your choice of comparison implies anything about unions. Has anyone in this discussion actually applied for and got a union job? Preferably in the last five years or so?
- workingon 4y ago
  This has to be a troll attempt right?
jollybean 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." Actually, to say that anti-union is anti-labour is actually to be ignorant of history of labour in the USA. Unions came into existence to give 'some power' to workers with none, but they can definitely take 'most' of the power in many cases and drive a lot of activity to inefficiency or otherwise. If I were King, I'd probably encourage retail sector and fast food unions, especially Wallmart/Amazon, at the same time dissolve public sector and auto unions. And completely overhaul doctor and nurse unions. Construction needs standards and guilds, but not unions.
- stephencanon 4y ago
  Only about 5% of physicians in the US are represented by a union—-there are lots of things that contribute to high healthcare cost in the US, but union representation of doctors is not one.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    The physicians guild's have incredible control over healthcare in America, essentially they set the terms for what constitutes a 'doctor' and they fight over what nurses can and cannot do etc.. If we were to 'remake' healthcare today with 20/20 - we may not even have doctors. We may have 'helpers' who don't have direct medical input but do most things a nurse can do, and then have really highly qualified nurses who are allowed to 'diagnose' and 'write scrips' for some things below a certain threshold, doctors who maybe streamline earlier, much more technology earlier. Etc. etc.. I have no idea, other than to say it probably wouldn't look like what we have today but it won't change because the institutional powers of Doctrs etc. is strong. They go back very far in history. In some ways these organizations predate the states they work within.
namlem 4y ago
Union leaders are elected by their current members. The current members want to create labor scarcity to inflate their own wages. Unions, just like industry associations and all other types of guilds, have a natural incentive to raise the barrier to entry. That isn't to say unions are bad necessarily. They have plenty of upsides as well. But it's important to recognize flawed incentives where they exist.
cheriot 4y ago
I'm generally a fan of unions, but the California trade unions I know of require new members start as apprentices even if they have the skills and decades of experience. That pay cut excludes a huge number of workers. We need to keep in mind that unions are also organizations of people and have all of the flaws and selfishness that comes with it. A needed counter balance, but not a silver bullet.

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.
  - atoav 4y ago
    For me it is simple: the corporation always works for it's own benefit without considering other merits. This means it is reasonable to have other institutions that defend other merits (privacy, the environment, worker rights, ...) Worker rights make it harder for corporations to extract money from the work, but leave more money with the workers. If the union goes in too much, they endanger the existence of the corporation (which will not benefit the workers they represent) so a balance forms that makes corporations more efficient.at paying workers, but less efficient at funneling money to shareholders.
    - vba616 4y ago
      >the corporation always works for it's own benefit without considering other merits I agree with you that regulation is required, but I don't agree with you in that I think a completely amoral corporation unconstrained by human values is non-viable no matter what external regulation exists. Historically, I don't believe people invented collective organizations to be pure and ruthless optimizers, and I think capitalism breaks down if it evolves towards the standard caricature by its enemies. Regulation can never be perfect enough to substitute for basic decency. It never was, so nobody knows how to do that. Similarly, I think, to trying to substitute computer code for contracts.
vba616 4y ago
It seems to me that any job paying $140K is a lot harder to get than something near minimum wage, so it's not all that obvious to me that your choice of comparison implies anything about unions. Has anyone in this discussion actually applied for and got a union job? Preferably in the last five years or so?
workingon 4y ago
This has to be a troll attempt right?

jollybean 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." Actually, to say that anti-union is anti-labour is actually to be ignorant of history of labour in the USA. Unions came into existence to give 'some power' to workers with none, but they can definitely take 'most' of the power in many cases and drive a lot of activity to inefficiency or otherwise. If I were King, I'd probably encourage retail sector and fast food unions, especially Wallmart/Amazon, at the same time dissolve public sector and auto unions. And completely overhaul doctor and nurse unions. Construction needs standards and guilds, but not unions.

stephencanon 4y ago
Only about 5% of physicians in the US are represented by a union—-there are lots of things that contribute to high healthcare cost in the US, but union representation of doctors is not one.
- jollybean 4y ago
  The physicians guild's have incredible control over healthcare in America, essentially they set the terms for what constitutes a 'doctor' and they fight over what nurses can and cannot do etc.. If we were to 'remake' healthcare today with 20/20 - we may not even have doctors. We may have 'helpers' who don't have direct medical input but do most things a nurse can do, and then have really highly qualified nurses who are allowed to 'diagnose' and 'write scrips' for some things below a certain threshold, doctors who maybe streamline earlier, much more technology earlier. Etc. etc.. I have no idea, other than to say it probably wouldn't look like what we have today but it won't change because the institutional powers of Doctrs etc. is strong. They go back very far in history. In some ways these organizations predate the states they work within.

namlem 4y ago

Union leaders are elected by their current members. The current members want to create labor scarcity to inflate their own wages. Unions, just like industry associations and all other types of guilds, have a natural incentive to raise the barrier to entry. That isn't to say unions are bad necessarily. They have plenty of upsides as well. But it's important to recognize flawed incentives where they exist.

cheriot 4y ago

I'm generally a fan of unions, but the California trade unions I know of require new members start as apprentices even if they have the skills and decades of experience. That pay cut excludes a huge number of workers. We need to keep in mind that unions are also organizations of people and have all of the flaws and selfishness that comes with it. A needed counter balance, but not a silver bullet.