4 ms·

Interesting bad actor problems, whereas a union (which is typically a good thing) does a bad thing (25k job grift, making goods more expensive for everyone), an

Interesting bad actor problems, whereas a union (which is typically a good thing) does a bad thing (25k job grift, making goods more expensive for everyone), and gives all unions a bad public image and weakens them as a result (bad thing, since it erodes worker leverage/rights in the long term) What's the proposed solution here?

baggy_trough 2y ago
Recognizing that unions are not typically a good thing is the first step.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  In a 0 sum game, a bad thing for one group is a good thing for another group. Step 1 would be realizing what type of games unions promote.
  - baggy_trough 2y ago
    0 sum would be an improvement.
inglor_cz 2y ago
"typically a good thing" For WHOM? There is a classical Roman legal adage "Cui prodest?" ("Who profits?"). I wish people started to apply it to situations and organizations before making blanket statements like this one. A union is usually intended to protect its members. Is that a "good" thing? OK, imagine a teacher's union fighting to protect a job of John Doe, a member. Will you reflexively say that this is a "good" thing? Aren't you missing important context? What if John Doe is suspected of being a child molester? Still a good thing? After all, the union is meant to protect interests of teachers, not children. For a slightly more absurd version, imagine a hypothetical Union of Terrestrial Network Workers trying to ban all sorts of wireless Internet: Wi-Fi, 5G, Starlink, or at least put heavy taxation on them. The absence of cables is stealing their jobs, because radio waves don't need nearly as much qualified maintenance. It is also harder to cut wireless Internet in case of a strike action. In what sense would that be "good" for anyone but their own members? In some contexts, a union can be a good thing, but it is fundamentally a self-interested cartel. It shouldn't be put into the same box with "really good things" such as cancer treatments or indoor plumbing.

baggy_trough 2y ago

Recognizing that unions are not typically a good thing is the first step.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
In a 0 sum game, a bad thing for one group is a good thing for another group. Step 1 would be realizing what type of games unions promote.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  0 sum would be an improvement.

inglor_cz 2y ago

"typically a good thing" For WHOM? There is a classical Roman legal adage "Cui prodest?" ("Who profits?"). I wish people started to apply it to situations and organizations before making blanket statements like this one. A union is usually intended to protect its members. Is that a "good" thing? OK, imagine a teacher's union fighting to protect a job of John Doe, a member. Will you reflexively say that this is a "good" thing? Aren't you missing important context? What if John Doe is suspected of being a child molester? Still a good thing? After all, the union is meant to protect interests of teachers, not children. For a slightly more absurd version, imagine a hypothetical Union of Terrestrial Network Workers trying to ban all sorts of wireless Internet: Wi-Fi, 5G, Starlink, or at least put heavy taxation on them. The absence of cables is stealing their jobs, because radio waves don't need nearly as much qualified maintenance. It is also harder to cut wireless Internet in case of a strike action. In what sense would that be "good" for anyone but their own members? In some contexts, a union can be a good thing, but it is fundamentally a self-interested cartel. It shouldn't be put into the same box with "really good things" such as cancer treatments or indoor plumbing.