4 ms·

Unionization is for losers. If you're not confident in your skills and your value on the market then you want to artificially restrict employment options for yo

Unionization is for losers. If you're not confident in your skills and your value on the market then you want to artificially restrict employment options for your potential competitors.

pyvpx 2y ago
I would implore you to read anything on the history of unionization.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  Hard to find anything remotely unbiased, or that does even a passable job at trying to remove confounding factors between the rate of unionization and commonly cited benefits like the rise in worker safety (which is overwhelmingly driven by rising standard of living). Got any economically literate reading recommendations?
  - wyre 2y ago
    Historical events are biased? Read about the Great Railroad Strike of 1977.
    - jessriedel 2y ago
      No the data collection and analysis are biased. If your argument is “consider this anecdote”, and you can’t imagine historical analysis of economic questions other than through non-quantitative hand-selected case studies, you’re falling into the same trap.
    - andsoitis 2y ago
      > Historical events are biased? It would be a mistake to take historical accounts at face value. They are written by humans, not some objective entity.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jrvarela56 2y ago
While I agree directionally with your stance, the argument is that businesses collude against workers (eg Apple/Google case) so workers might as well collude against businesses.
thebiteitstings 2y ago
Correct.
solardev 2y ago
What do you mean by this? > you want to artificially restrict employment options for your potential competitors.
- Detrytus 2y ago
  Well, in many professions unions demand that you only hire unionized workers. Hire one person person who is not a member, and the union workers will go on strike. Sometimes it even get's codified into the law, that you have to consult unions on everything.
- baruz 2y ago
  Most unions demand standardized pay scales, maybe varying with seniority or experience. Slichter et alii (1960) say wage standardization is the most widely heralded union wage policy. Freeman (1980, 1984) showed that wages compress due to wage standardization at union shops. Because wage dispersion and inequality is lower, if you consider your skills and experience extraordinary, you will not be getting pay commensurate with your perceived value to the company at a union shop. That provides a moat of sorts for incumbent workers against "rockstars," "10x," and higher-skilled workers deciding to join the company. Slichter, S. H., Healy, J. J., and Livernash, E. R. (1960). _The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management_. Freeman, R. B. (1980) "Unionism and the dispersion of wages," _Industrial and Labor Relations Review_. Freeman, R. B. (1984), "Longitudinal analyses of the effects of trade unions," _Journal of Labor Economics_

Unionization is for losers. If you're not confident in your skills and your value on the market then you want to artificially restrict employment options for your potential competitors.

pyvpx 2y ago

I would implore you to read anything on the history of unionization.

jessriedel 2y ago
Hard to find anything remotely unbiased, or that does even a passable job at trying to remove confounding factors between the rate of unionization and commonly cited benefits like the rise in worker safety (which is overwhelmingly driven by rising standard of living). Got any economically literate reading recommendations?
- wyre 2y ago
  Historical events are biased? Read about the Great Railroad Strike of 1977.
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    No the data collection and analysis are biased. If your argument is “consider this anecdote”, and you can’t imagine historical analysis of economic questions other than through non-quantitative hand-selected case studies, you’re falling into the same trap.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    > Historical events are biased? It would be a mistake to take historical accounts at face value. They are written by humans, not some objective entity.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jrvarela56 2y ago

While I agree directionally with your stance, the argument is that businesses collude against workers (eg Apple/Google case) so workers might as well collude against businesses.

thebiteitstings 2y ago

Correct.

solardev 2y ago

What do you mean by this? > you want to artificially restrict employment options for your potential competitors.

Detrytus 2y ago
Well, in many professions unions demand that you only hire unionized workers. Hire one person person who is not a member, and the union workers will go on strike. Sometimes it even get's codified into the law, that you have to consult unions on everything.
baruz 2y ago
Most unions demand standardized pay scales, maybe varying with seniority or experience. Slichter et alii (1960) say wage standardization is the most widely heralded union wage policy. Freeman (1980, 1984) showed that wages compress due to wage standardization at union shops. Because wage dispersion and inequality is lower, if you consider your skills and experience extraordinary, you will not be getting pay commensurate with your perceived value to the company at a union shop. That provides a moat of sorts for incumbent workers against "rockstars," "10x," and higher-skilled workers deciding to join the company. Slichter, S. H., Healy, J. J., and Livernash, E. R. (1960). _The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management_. Freeman, R. B. (1980) "Unionism and the dispersion of wages," _Industrial and Labor Relations Review_. Freeman, R. B. (1984), "Longitudinal analyses of the effects of trade unions," _Journal of Labor Economics_