3 ms·
This is not correct, at least not for me. I don't like public unions for the 3 points this article outlines. I would counter your point about effective and say
by snapplebobapple 2y ago
This is not correct, at least not for me. I don't like public unions for the 3 points this article outlines. I would counter your point about effective and say that that only appear effective (if you define effective at maximizing union member compensation) because they can abuse market power and collude with politicians to pay labor way more than would ever happen if the business they were operating in could be substituted away from by its customers. This is not effective on a society level, it's dead weight loss causing abuse of market power and it should be stopped.
- zeroCalories 2y agoAlmost everything you described could be done by a private sector union. They're just worse at it.
- snapplebobapple 2y agoNo it can't be, at least not for any serious length of time. If a private union gets away with the above for any length of time it will eventually kill the company because the competing companies will outcompete it. (it could work if the company was a strong oligopoly or monopoly but the correct solution there is to break up the company, not allow the union to collect its piece of the monopoly profits at the expense of deadweight loss to society).
- zeroCalories 2y agoMany unions, like the actors guild, or nurses' union aren't tied to specific companies. You see auto workers' protesting and Biden trying to appease them, but in the end it doesn't matter much because they are weak. Sure the union might end up just killing their industry, but that's no different from public unions getting crushed by resentful voters, which we've seen in cases with police unions.