5 ms·

> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that

> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. > Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. > A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.

CamperBob2 3y ago
For one thing, berserk cops could actually be fired if it weren't for their union.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  It is not the union that is keeping those cops employed - they're taken off the street, typically without pay - while their case is being adjudicated. What is keeping them employed is the doctrine of qualified immunity where they are rarely, if ever, held to account, criminally, for their behavior.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Look at how the justice system, regulators and legislators treat cops who abuse their power. The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.
bko 3y ago
> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. This explains the decline of unions in general. Its also tough when the president of the US is on the picket line and your industry depends on a federal bailout every decade or so. But that's a while different story... > Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. Other places are not immune and if someone wants to hire their family member at an above market rate, he is free to do so. But it may raise a few eyebrows from greedy business owners. But paying above market rates is not by design. I would still like to know what to do if you have 100 equally qualified people trying to get the same over paid position. How do you decide? > Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? Absolutely. You don't see non unionized industries protecting workers to an extreme degree. Why would they? The whole premise behind unions is that management is not always aligned with workers interests. But now you're telling me managers would protect literal murderers just because? It's not consistent
adamrezich 3y ago
> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  > as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. > enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking Yes, workers talking to each other about forming a union is a right they have by virtue of being a human being. Why does nobody flip this around and ask _what is the business owner doing wrong that their employees feel they need the protection of a union_? > somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible For some workers it actually is. The primary thing that distinguishes the owners of the business and the workers of the business is access to capital. It is asinine to assume that someone who has worked all of their life necessarily has access to the capital to start a business. There is a power imbalance here, and you have not addressed it here. > connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history This is what a push to unionize _is_. The owners have the ability to respond to this - it's a growing industry of anti-union consultants and had made a few companies obscenely wealthy providing those services. > somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will See my point above about this being a strawman. Nobody is saying that the person that starts the company has ZERO value. Far from it. All they are asking is fair compensation for their work that has enriched the owner, which they are not getting. Employee productivity has almost doubled but their wages have been stagnant. Far from workers acting like owners have no value, it's the owners that are treating the workers as not having value.

CamperBob2 3y ago

For one thing, berserk cops could actually be fired if it weren't for their union.

phone8675309 3y ago
It is not the union that is keeping those cops employed - they're taken off the street, typically without pay - while their case is being adjudicated. What is keeping them employed is the doctrine of qualified immunity where they are rarely, if ever, held to account, criminally, for their behavior.
heavyset_go 3y ago
Look at how the justice system, regulators and legislators treat cops who abuse their power. The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.

bko 3y ago

> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. This explains the decline of unions in general. Its also tough when the president of the US is on the picket line and your industry depends on a federal bailout every decade or so. But that's a while different story... > Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. Other places are not immune and if someone wants to hire their family member at an above market rate, he is free to do so. But it may raise a few eyebrows from greedy business owners. But paying above market rates is not by design. I would still like to know what to do if you have 100 equally qualified people trying to get the same over paid position. How do you decide? > Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? Absolutely. You don't see non unionized industries protecting workers to an extreme degree. Why would they? The whole premise behind unions is that management is not always aligned with workers interests. But now you're telling me managers would protect literal murderers just because? It's not consistent

adamrezich 3y ago

> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.

phone8675309 3y ago
> as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. > enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking Yes, workers talking to each other about forming a union is a right they have by virtue of being a human being. Why does nobody flip this around and ask _what is the business owner doing wrong that their employees feel they need the protection of a union_? > somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible For some workers it actually is. The primary thing that distinguishes the owners of the business and the workers of the business is access to capital. It is asinine to assume that someone who has worked all of their life necessarily has access to the capital to start a business. There is a power imbalance here, and you have not addressed it here. > connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history This is what a push to unionize _is_. The owners have the ability to respond to this - it's a growing industry of anti-union consultants and had made a few companies obscenely wealthy providing those services. > somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will See my point above about this being a strawman. Nobody is saying that the person that starts the company has ZERO value. Far from it. All they are asking is fair compensation for their work that has enriched the owner, which they are not getting. Employee productivity has almost doubled but their wages have been stagnant. Far from workers acting like owners have no value, it's the owners that are treating the workers as not having value.