4 ms·

This is just "I'm not racist, but..." applied to labor.[1] You're not pro-union. You're anti-union plus rhetoric. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_

This is just "I'm not racist, but..." applied to labor.[1] You're not pro-union. You're anti-union plus rhetoric. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_racist%2C_but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_racist%2C_but...

EasyMark 2y ago
It isn’t unless you’re an extremist. It’s one thing to shut down an industry for a few weeks while you bargain and that has alternatives and society can absorb a few weeks, it’s another one to shut off all ports and hope to set off a national recession because it gives you bargaining power. There are limits to everything.
- consteval 2y ago
  This can be easily avoided by meeting the Union's demands. A free labor market means laborers are free to go. If this means you have no ports, then you are not competitive on the labor market. Corporations have gotten extremely comfortable with existing in an extremely skewed labor market. One where they do not have to pay because they don't have to be competitive - workers have zero mobility, zero visibility, and need to eat. If the corporations cannot meet the Unions demands and that results in failure to buy or sell, that is the free market at play. They can simply pay more. Clearly, the demand for this labor is extremely high and the supply is what it is. That means pay up.
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    The unions demands may have been met if they didn't ask for ridiculous things like a complete ban on automation.
    - consteval 2y ago
      It's not ridiculous, it's a market force. Again, if the demand for such laborers is high enough then they will do it.
    - no_exit 2y ago
      The best way to negotiate is to ask for nothing, and in turn receive everything from your enlightened, benevolent (and dare I say, handsome!) master.
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
        Considering a series of robots can do their jobs and they have essentially held the supply chain hostage to get top % salaries, yes they should be grateful for every morsel they extract from the US populace.
dopamean 2y ago
I grew up in a union household. My father was a member of an airline pilots union and my mother was a member of (23 years) and president of (17 years) the teachers union in our town. Unions kept my parent's gainfully employed for decades. As for "I'm not racist but..." I don't need a wiki link. I'm black and well aware of that kind of idiocy. This is not that. Nice try though.
- nataliste 2y ago
  >I grew up in a union household. My father was a member of an airline pilots union and my mother was a member of (23 years) and president of (17 years) the teachers union in our town. Unions kept my parent's gainfully employed for decades. "I'm not racist, I have black friends" applied to labor. The only reason unions exist is to protect the jobs of the union at the expense of the whole economy through collective bargaining and striking when leverage exists. If it's not doing that, it's not a union, it's a professional club. When you say: >I understand that automation costs jobs and a union's primary responsibility is to protect the jobs of its members but what are we really supposed to do here? Continue with antiquated processes that affect an entire economy just to protect the jobs of a relatively small number of people? If you're pro-union, the answer is yes, categorically. You don't get to decide whether their demands are reasonable or not. It's their union and their industry. You support them if they decide to strike. If you don't, well, that's your right, but it puts you outside the camp of labor and being pro-union. Being pro-union between strikes is like being a pacifist between wars. Cheap, unprincipled, and contemptible.
  - dopamean 2y ago
    I see the disconnect here for you. You believe that if you ever disagree with a union on a particular position that means you’re anti union. Which is obviously a stupid thing to think.
    - nataliste 2y ago
      No, I believe if you claim to be pro-union except when a union is striking because it allows "[...] antiquated processes that affect an entire economy just to protect the jobs of a relatively small number of people" then guess what? You're as pro-union as the likes of Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, which is to say not at all. If you don't believe in the right to strike even when it hurts or even paralyzes the economy, then you don't believe in it at all.

EasyMark 2y ago

It isn’t unless you’re an extremist. It’s one thing to shut down an industry for a few weeks while you bargain and that has alternatives and society can absorb a few weeks, it’s another one to shut off all ports and hope to set off a national recession because it gives you bargaining power. There are limits to everything.

consteval 2y ago
This can be easily avoided by meeting the Union's demands. A free labor market means laborers are free to go. If this means you have no ports, then you are not competitive on the labor market. Corporations have gotten extremely comfortable with existing in an extremely skewed labor market. One where they do not have to pay because they don't have to be competitive - workers have zero mobility, zero visibility, and need to eat. If the corporations cannot meet the Unions demands and that results in failure to buy or sell, that is the free market at play. They can simply pay more. Clearly, the demand for this labor is extremely high and the supply is what it is. That means pay up.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  The unions demands may have been met if they didn't ask for ridiculous things like a complete ban on automation.
  - consteval 2y ago
    It's not ridiculous, it's a market force. Again, if the demand for such laborers is high enough then they will do it.
  - no_exit 2y ago
    The best way to negotiate is to ask for nothing, and in turn receive everything from your enlightened, benevolent (and dare I say, handsome!) master.
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      Considering a series of robots can do their jobs and they have essentially held the supply chain hostage to get top % salaries, yes they should be grateful for every morsel they extract from the US populace.

dopamean 2y ago

I grew up in a union household. My father was a member of an airline pilots union and my mother was a member of (23 years) and president of (17 years) the teachers union in our town. Unions kept my parent's gainfully employed for decades. As for "I'm not racist but..." I don't need a wiki link. I'm black and well aware of that kind of idiocy. This is not that. Nice try though.

nataliste 2y ago
>I grew up in a union household. My father was a member of an airline pilots union and my mother was a member of (23 years) and president of (17 years) the teachers union in our town. Unions kept my parent's gainfully employed for decades. "I'm not racist, I have black friends" applied to labor. The only reason unions exist is to protect the jobs of the union at the expense of the whole economy through collective bargaining and striking when leverage exists. If it's not doing that, it's not a union, it's a professional club. When you say: >I understand that automation costs jobs and a union's primary responsibility is to protect the jobs of its members but what are we really supposed to do here? Continue with antiquated processes that affect an entire economy just to protect the jobs of a relatively small number of people? If you're pro-union, the answer is yes, categorically. You don't get to decide whether their demands are reasonable or not. It's their union and their industry. You support them if they decide to strike. If you don't, well, that's your right, but it puts you outside the camp of labor and being pro-union. Being pro-union between strikes is like being a pacifist between wars. Cheap, unprincipled, and contemptible.
- dopamean 2y ago
  I see the disconnect here for you. You believe that if you ever disagree with a union on a particular position that means you’re anti union. Which is obviously a stupid thing to think.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    No, I believe if you claim to be pro-union except when a union is striking because it allows "[...] antiquated processes that affect an entire economy just to protect the jobs of a relatively small number of people" then guess what? You're as pro-union as the likes of Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, which is to say not at all. If you don't believe in the right to strike even when it hurts or even paralyzes the economy, then you don't believe in it at all.