5 ms·

God knows the first thing I do when deciding whether to shop at a supermarket is find out whether it's unionized, and avoid it if it is.

by kenko 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago
If there's two supermarkets in town and one is unionized, the other one will probably be better for the customer in some way, usually because they'll have lower prices. Customers either don't care about unions or slightly favor them, but the end results of a union do drive customers away. I don't think it's at all arguable that unions--at least American unions--are detrimental to the health of the businesses their employees work for. Fundamentally, these unions are parasitic. They treat the wealth of its host as a given and find ways to extract more of that wealth. The flaw behind this is that the wealth of a company is not a given--it depends upon the customers, and the more you try to extract wealth from the company, the greater the impact on the customer. Either that, or the company just goes flat broke[1]. A company that doesn't have these additional costs and distractions is more able to focus on the customer, or at the very least can do just as good a job without going flat broke. The experience of US automakers vs foreign competitors, or Boeing vs Airbus, or unionized retail vs. Wal-Mart and Amazon, bears this out. [1] If the company just goes flat broke, then the union isn't a problem per se, just a con game on shareholders. Airlines are an example: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Unions are simply a balancing force to that of the management whose sole purpose is to extract as much profit from the enterprise. Yes, a lot of bad things can happen when unions gain too much power. But that doesn't mean unions are necessarily evil. On the contrary, they are a necessary evil, as a balancing force of the evil of the profit incentive. The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. In many cases the signal necessary to make a judgement is not propagated to consumers, at least not in such a way that it will cause a change in consumers purchasing decisions. This is where unions are necessary to correct against overbearing and unrealistic management. Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    > Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution. I'll agree with that, but I think regulation and Big Government™ are a better solution and unions have outlived their usefulness. You can tell because most people who advocate for unions just rest on past glories.
    - elviejo 14y ago
      Freelancers union is a new phenomena... And the fact that it is formed by independent workers.. tells you about the need for this associations.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      I can agree with your point. Government perhaps is smarter and better equipped to deal with these types of issues than it was in the past when unions were necessary. The follow up question to this is: how did Government become smarter about labor issues? Was it unions that brought these issues to mainstream attention? If we do away unions, who could adequately fill this role? Unions are special because they have direct access to information that is generally lost to anyone outside of the company's walls. Any entity that filled the role of watchdog would need access to this information.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. Can you explain this claim? Specifically, why "overreaching management" is bad for consumers, and why the market can't correct for it?
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      I don't personally believe that overreaching management is necessarily bad for consumers. I was just trying to preempt what seemed to be a logical reply given philwelch's previous comments. As to why the market won't necessarily correct for it, is because many times overreaching management is effective (at least in the short term). Degrade working conditions to cut costs and the consumer benefits. The information about how these lower prices were brought to the consumer is usually lost in the process. That signal simply doesn't reach all interested parties, and thus they aren't able to adjust their behavior in response. Some situations it can work, for example a business where customer service is a large part of the experience. The signal of overreaching management does eventually filter down to the consumer.
- rhizome 14y ago
  What do you mean by "will probably be better?" I have to think there's plenty of real-world evidence to obviate that hedge by now.
- kenko 14y ago
  "If there's two supermarkets in town and one is unionized, the other one will probably be better for the customer in some way, usually because they'll have lower prices." This does not at all correspond to my experience.

God knows the first thing I do when deciding whether to shop at a supermarket is find out whether it's unionized, and avoid it if it is.

by kenko 14y ago

God knows the first thing I do when deciding whether to shop at a supermarket is find out whether it's unionized, and avoid it if it is.

philwelch 14y ago

If there's two supermarkets in town and one is unionized, the other one will probably be better for the customer in some way, usually because they'll have lower prices. Customers either don't care about unions or slightly favor them, but the end results of a union do drive customers away. I don't think it's at all arguable that unions--at least American unions--are detrimental to the health of the businesses their employees work for. Fundamentally, these unions are parasitic. They treat the wealth of its host as a given and find ways to extract more of that wealth. The flaw behind this is that the wealth of a company is not a given--it depends upon the customers, and the more you try to extract wealth from the company, the greater the impact on the customer. Either that, or the company just goes flat broke[1]. A company that doesn't have these additional costs and distractions is more able to focus on the customer, or at the very least can do just as good a job without going flat broke. The experience of US automakers vs foreign competitors, or Boeing vs Airbus, or unionized retail vs. Wal-Mart and Amazon, bears this out. [1] If the company just goes flat broke, then the union isn't a problem per se, just a con game on shareholders. Airlines are an example: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines

hackinthebochs 14y ago
Unions are simply a balancing force to that of the management whose sole purpose is to extract as much profit from the enterprise. Yes, a lot of bad things can happen when unions gain too much power. But that doesn't mean unions are necessarily evil. On the contrary, they are a necessary evil, as a balancing force of the evil of the profit incentive. The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. In many cases the signal necessary to make a judgement is not propagated to consumers, at least not in such a way that it will cause a change in consumers purchasing decisions. This is where unions are necessary to correct against overbearing and unrealistic management. Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.
- philwelch 14y ago
  > Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution. I'll agree with that, but I think regulation and Big Government™ are a better solution and unions have outlived their usefulness. You can tell because most people who advocate for unions just rest on past glories.
  - elviejo 14y ago
    Freelancers union is a new phenomena... And the fact that it is formed by independent workers.. tells you about the need for this associations.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    I can agree with your point. Government perhaps is smarter and better equipped to deal with these types of issues than it was in the past when unions were necessary. The follow up question to this is: how did Government become smarter about labor issues? Was it unions that brought these issues to mainstream attention? If we do away unions, who could adequately fill this role? Unions are special because they have direct access to information that is generally lost to anyone outside of the company's walls. Any entity that filled the role of watchdog would need access to this information.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. Can you explain this claim? Specifically, why "overreaching management" is bad for consumers, and why the market can't correct for it?
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    I don't personally believe that overreaching management is necessarily bad for consumers. I was just trying to preempt what seemed to be a logical reply given philwelch's previous comments. As to why the market won't necessarily correct for it, is because many times overreaching management is effective (at least in the short term). Degrade working conditions to cut costs and the consumer benefits. The information about how these lower prices were brought to the consumer is usually lost in the process. That signal simply doesn't reach all interested parties, and thus they aren't able to adjust their behavior in response. Some situations it can work, for example a business where customer service is a large part of the experience. The signal of overreaching management does eventually filter down to the consumer.
rhizome 14y ago
What do you mean by "will probably be better?" I have to think there's plenty of real-world evidence to obviate that hedge by now.
kenko 14y ago
"If there's two supermarkets in town and one is unionized, the other one will probably be better for the customer in some way, usually because they'll have lower prices." This does not at all correspond to my experience.