4 ms·

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwa

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

bumby 2y ago
>It's stepping backwards for short term comfort. Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well. The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The correct solution is to break up the monopoly.
  - bumby 2y ago
    >If the labor market functioned correctly See my previous comment about theory breaking down in practice. There are all kinds of asymmetries that make economies not function correctly in a theoretical sense and we (as a society) develop policies to mitigate those dysfunctions. I don't know that the scales operate in ways that allow for every corporate (pseudo)monopoly to be broken up and still have viable industries. Especially in countries that succumb to regulatory capture. That means there would need to be some countervailing balance to that power, and that's where unions come in.
  - slow_typist 2y ago
    Labor markets are difficult. If low wages go down further, people will offer more Labor, not less, and your microeconomic equilibrium goes out of the window very quickly. Also, while demand for work is not monopolistic per se, the employer has usually a structural advantage when closing a contract with a single employee, and in some industries only a few very big employers compete on the labor market. If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.
hobs 2y ago
The other option is trying to fight a bigger opponent as an individual - what do you recommend, changing all the laws by yourself?
- akira2501 2y ago
  > changing all the laws by yourself? Laws change every day. There must be a working process for that.
  - 95014_refugee 2y ago
    For sufficiently narrow interpretations of "working", perhaps. Otherwise, I think you might be a little optimistic here.
  - velcrovan 2y ago
    Historically, here in the US, things like 40 hour weeks, two-day weekends, overtime pay, safety protections, etc. came about because of union actions and the political climate they created. small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(Minneapolis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(Minneapolis)
  - hobs 2y ago
    English allows your "must be" to be interpreted two common ways. 1. A comment about how in general there should be a way to do that, but not engaging in the topic, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it, giving none back, and just mildly sneering at anyone foolish enough to join such a basal endeavor as a union. 2. A comment about how we would need to accomplish that goal and that establishing the working process should come before unionizing as it is the proper solution to the problem, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it until we solved the problem that is effectively created by corporations to be unsolveable. Collective action works, it solves problems, it gives workers space to live and have basic rights, and we don't have to throw up our hands and say "there must be a better way!"

Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.

bumby 2y ago

>It's stepping backwards for short term comfort. Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.

akira2501 2y ago
> of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well. The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The correct solution is to break up the monopoly.
- bumby 2y ago
  >If the labor market functioned correctly See my previous comment about theory breaking down in practice. There are all kinds of asymmetries that make economies not function correctly in a theoretical sense and we (as a society) develop policies to mitigate those dysfunctions. I don't know that the scales operate in ways that allow for every corporate (pseudo)monopoly to be broken up and still have viable industries. Especially in countries that succumb to regulatory capture. That means there would need to be some countervailing balance to that power, and that's where unions come in.
- slow_typist 2y ago
  Labor markets are difficult. If low wages go down further, people will offer more Labor, not less, and your microeconomic equilibrium goes out of the window very quickly. Also, while demand for work is not monopolistic per se, the employer has usually a structural advantage when closing a contract with a single employee, and in some industries only a few very big employers compete on the labor market. If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.

hobs 2y ago

The other option is trying to fight a bigger opponent as an individual - what do you recommend, changing all the laws by yourself?

akira2501 2y ago
> changing all the laws by yourself? Laws change every day. There must be a working process for that.
- 95014_refugee 2y ago
  For sufficiently narrow interpretations of "working", perhaps. Otherwise, I think you might be a little optimistic here.
- velcrovan 2y ago
  Historically, here in the US, things like 40 hour weeks, two-day weekends, overtime pay, safety protections, etc. came about because of union actions and the political climate they created. small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(Minneapolis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(Minneapolis)
- hobs 2y ago
  English allows your "must be" to be interpreted two common ways. 1. A comment about how in general there should be a way to do that, but not engaging in the topic, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it, giving none back, and just mildly sneering at anyone foolish enough to join such a basal endeavor as a union. 2. A comment about how we would need to accomplish that goal and that establishing the working process should come before unionizing as it is the proper solution to the problem, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it until we solved the problem that is effectively created by corporations to be unsolveable. Collective action works, it solves problems, it gives workers space to live and have basic rights, and we don't have to throw up our hands and say "there must be a better way!"