4 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." Actually, to say that anti-union is
by 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 agoOnly 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 agoThe 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.