4 ms·

> United States and it is not allowed to by our laws. Yeah. Because at one point unions got so powerful they formed their own union towns. They even got infil

by Ygg2 1y ago

> United States and it is not allowed to by our laws. Yeah. Because at one point unions got so powerful they formed their own union towns. They even got infiltrated by the mob. Plus Europe union laws and US union laws are separate things. For example in France, whatever concessions union gets, are applied to all employees. Which isn't the case in US and is iirc considered anti-union. However then you remember that US union depends on participation for union healthcare. The biggest problem for unions today isn't the laws. It's ironically the free trade (lack of laws). Don't want to do this job for peanuts? We'll ship it overseas for someone willing to work for half a peanut.

nerdponx 1y ago
> Yeah. Because at one point unions got so powerful they formed their own union towns. Companies did this too, but it wasn't bothering any policy makers.
- Ygg2 1y ago
  Because rising affluence killed them. New Deal with the new mandatory minimum wage made them obsolete.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  It did, in fact, bother policy makers (or, at least, it bothered their constituents enough that the constituents bothered the policy makers), which is why there are (e.g.) laws requiring pay in cash or cash equivalents; this is directly prohibition on the practice of pay in company scrip. Many other features of the company town practice were also the focus of direct legislative restrictions and prohibitions.
  - nerdponx 1y ago
    And that happened largely because of powerful unions.
    - Ygg2 1y ago
      Having unions/labor be powerful can be deleterious as well. For example pursuing labor friendly policies of full employment can backfire and cause wage and inflation spiral. See Kalecki's critique of full employment. If market reaches a point even worst employee can quit to earn a raise this will force wages to spike, which is a cost that's passed to consumer, which forces consumers to switch to more profitable jobs.
      - nerdponx 1y ago
        > labor friendly policies of full employment Same response as above. Everyone is so eager to criticize unions for doing the same thing big business employers do, and so in fear of the negative consequences, that they'd rather accept the status quo (of massive power imbalance in favor of big employers) than even consider alternative arrangements. Don't be a mouthpiece for corporate propaganda. In an ideal world, government sees its job as facilitating a balance of economic power betweeen big employers nor big labor unions, acting as a sort of economic referee, and neither of the two market players would exert political influence to unbalance the rules. Sometimes I wonder if the people who are so strongly opposed to powerful labor unions think that this is the current situation. Because if you look at the actual balance of power, political and economic, it's hard not to think that big employers have the majority of it, and that at least some balancing force is needed in the other direction.

by Ygg2 1y ago

nerdponx 1y ago

> Yeah. Because at one point unions got so powerful they formed their own union towns. Companies did this too, but it wasn't bothering any policy makers.

Ygg2 1y ago
Because rising affluence killed them. New Deal with the new mandatory minimum wage made them obsolete.
dragonwriter 1y ago
It did, in fact, bother policy makers (or, at least, it bothered their constituents enough that the constituents bothered the policy makers), which is why there are (e.g.) laws requiring pay in cash or cash equivalents; this is directly prohibition on the practice of pay in company scrip. Many other features of the company town practice were also the focus of direct legislative restrictions and prohibitions.
- nerdponx 1y ago
  And that happened largely because of powerful unions.
  - Ygg2 1y ago
    Having unions/labor be powerful can be deleterious as well. For example pursuing labor friendly policies of full employment can backfire and cause wage and inflation spiral. See Kalecki's critique of full employment. If market reaches a point even worst employee can quit to earn a raise this will force wages to spike, which is a cost that's passed to consumer, which forces consumers to switch to more profitable jobs.
    - nerdponx 1y ago
      > labor friendly policies of full employment Same response as above. Everyone is so eager to criticize unions for doing the same thing big business employers do, and so in fear of the negative consequences, that they'd rather accept the status quo (of massive power imbalance in favor of big employers) than even consider alternative arrangements. Don't be a mouthpiece for corporate propaganda. In an ideal world, government sees its job as facilitating a balance of economic power betweeen big employers nor big labor unions, acting as a sort of economic referee, and neither of the two market players would exert political influence to unbalance the rules. Sometimes I wonder if the people who are so strongly opposed to powerful labor unions think that this is the current situation. Because if you look at the actual balance of power, political and economic, it's hard not to think that big employers have the majority of it, and that at least some balancing force is needed in the other direction.