4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou'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 agoYou'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 agoI 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 agoFor 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 agoIt 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 agoThis has to be a troll attempt right?