4 ms·

Unions make sense if the employers have the ability to exploit the workers. By forming a collective bargaining position the workers can prevent that from happen

Unions make sense if the employers have the ability to exploit the workers. By forming a collective bargaining position the workers can prevent that from happening. With the tight labor market there are very few places where employers are able to exploit anyone, people can just move to another job. And in many European countries there are already strong worker protections in place through legislation. (I would argue too much, where I live). So unions are of little use anymore, except for perhaps using the power they have to exploit employers. I think being a member of one signals to an employer you may want to exploit them, rightly or wrongly, at least where I live it's often understood membership will hurt your chances of getting higher up in the organisation.

xpe 3y ago
> Unions make sense if the employers have the ability to exploit the workers. This is an overly narrow definition, so I label it is largely incorrect. Think of it this way: society involves dynamically-shifting power balances. To the extent the goals of a society include: (a) standardizing certain rights and norms (b) providing checks and balances so the powerful have less temptation and ability to exploit the less We don't want to rely on only one mechanism to achieve (a) and (b). Sure, we want healthy markets and skilled workers. We also want workers who have enough flexibility to change industries and to move geographically. But we also want effective regulation. And we ALSO want organizations that can directly advocate on behalf of workers. > So unions are of little use anymore, except for perhaps using the power they have to exploit employers. This statement is silly and ignores the realities I've seen. Sure, a union left to its own devices might be tempted to push too far. But given the dynamic one tends to see in western economies, there is always some kind of negotiation with the associated corporation. Such negotiation is quite similar to parties in the legal system hashing it out. Both may start off far apart but the negotiation tends to lead towards compromise. In the United States, unions that push to far face public backlash and even Presidential action. I'm not making any dogmatic claims here. I'm simple rejecting overly simplistic arguments against unions. I will readily accept that unions are not silver bullets and there are documented cases of corruption and misaligned incentives. But the solution is not to argue that the notion of a union is useless. The intellectually honest solution is to seek achievable solution in the mess that is the real world. I laugh at people who aren't even trained economists who interpret their models as some kind of reality -- or worse, some kind of normative specification. Very few dogmatic claims pro- or anti- union survive contact with reality.
- pompino 3y ago
  > But the solution is not to argue that the notion of a union is useless. The intellectually honest solution is to seek achievable solution in the mess that is the real world. You can say that about any topic, but what specifically are you proposing? Or do you just want to talk about stuff?
  - xpe 3y ago
    I refer you to what I already wrote: > We don't want to rely on only one mechanism to achieve (a) and (b). Sure, we want healthy markets and skilled workers. We also want workers who have enough flexibility to change industries and to move geographically. But we also want effective regulation. And we ALSO want organizations that can directly advocate on behalf of workers.
    - pompino 3y ago
      Ultimately we need a cohesive strategy to convert your wishes and desires into actionable legislation and policies and consensus building around those - which is the hard part. It seems to me, few people want to take crack at that.
  - xpe 3y ago
    > Or do you just want to talk about stuff? Saying that comes across as dismissive.
    - pompino 3y ago
      You were kinda wishy washy in your response. I'm bringing the conversation back on track. Sorry, didn't know you were so sensitive to language. I'll try to calibrate my responses to you.
      - xpe 3y ago
        I see your desire to "bring the conversation back on track". On your terms, it would seem. It came across rather heavy handedly. This is a request you can make, not something you can impose. By "wishy-washy" do you feel like... I'm being indecisive? Not taking a firm stance? Changing positions? Here's how I see it -- I often intentionally don't "hit people over the head" with my particular positions. It doesn't mean I don't have a stance; instead, I often prefer to frame the issue first. I consider this a starting point, not an ending one, so feel free to continue the conversation.

xpe 3y ago

> Unions make sense if the employers have the ability to exploit the workers. This is an overly narrow definition, so I label it is largely incorrect. Think of it this way: society involves dynamically-shifting power balances. To the extent the goals of a society include: (a) standardizing certain rights and norms (b) providing checks and balances so the powerful have less temptation and ability to exploit the less We don't want to rely on only one mechanism to achieve (a) and (b). Sure, we want healthy markets and skilled workers. We also want workers who have enough flexibility to change industries and to move geographically. But we also want effective regulation. And we ALSO want organizations that can directly advocate on behalf of workers. > So unions are of little use anymore, except for perhaps using the power they have to exploit employers. This statement is silly and ignores the realities I've seen. Sure, a union left to its own devices might be tempted to push too far. But given the dynamic one tends to see in western economies, there is always some kind of negotiation with the associated corporation. Such negotiation is quite similar to parties in the legal system hashing it out. Both may start off far apart but the negotiation tends to lead towards compromise. In the United States, unions that push to far face public backlash and even Presidential action. I'm not making any dogmatic claims here. I'm simple rejecting overly simplistic arguments against unions. I will readily accept that unions are not silver bullets and there are documented cases of corruption and misaligned incentives. But the solution is not to argue that the notion of a union is useless. The intellectually honest solution is to seek achievable solution in the mess that is the real world. I laugh at people who aren't even trained economists who interpret their models as some kind of reality -- or worse, some kind of normative specification. Very few dogmatic claims pro- or anti- union survive contact with reality.

pompino 3y ago
> But the solution is not to argue that the notion of a union is useless. The intellectually honest solution is to seek achievable solution in the mess that is the real world. You can say that about any topic, but what specifically are you proposing? Or do you just want to talk about stuff?
- xpe 3y ago
  I refer you to what I already wrote: > We don't want to rely on only one mechanism to achieve (a) and (b). Sure, we want healthy markets and skilled workers. We also want workers who have enough flexibility to change industries and to move geographically. But we also want effective regulation. And we ALSO want organizations that can directly advocate on behalf of workers.
  - pompino 3y ago
    Ultimately we need a cohesive strategy to convert your wishes and desires into actionable legislation and policies and consensus building around those - which is the hard part. It seems to me, few people want to take crack at that.
- xpe 3y ago
  > Or do you just want to talk about stuff? Saying that comes across as dismissive.
  - pompino 3y ago
    You were kinda wishy washy in your response. I'm bringing the conversation back on track. Sorry, didn't know you were so sensitive to language. I'll try to calibrate my responses to you.
    - xpe 3y ago
      I see your desire to "bring the conversation back on track". On your terms, it would seem. It came across rather heavy handedly. This is a request you can make, not something you can impose. By "wishy-washy" do you feel like... I'm being indecisive? Not taking a firm stance? Changing positions? Here's how I see it -- I often intentionally don't "hit people over the head" with my particular positions. It doesn't mean I don't have a stance; instead, I often prefer to frame the issue first. I consider this a starting point, not an ending one, so feel free to continue the conversation.