4 ms·

> Profit is "evil" here because it creates incentives for all sorts of bad things. This is what necessitates a balancing force. Even if that's true, unions are

by anamax 14y ago

> Profit is "evil" here because it creates incentives for all sorts of bad things. This is what necessitates a balancing force. Even if that's true, unions aren't a balancing force to the "incentives for all sorts of bad things". The only role that unions will play here is in trying to get their cut. Actually, that's wrong. Unions will often actively help commit said "bad things" because they'll benefit. For example, unions are often quite protectionist.

hackinthebochs 14y ago
Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good". Everyone always loves to simplify things down to their pet ideology.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good". The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit. Since that evil produces more money for the company, you need an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut. Unions are not new, so if you're going to suggest that they're useful for doing something, you should have actual examples of them doing said something.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Decreasing the company's profit doesn't necessarily equate to a union taking its "cut" (of the profits). Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment. Here the union is a check against a corporation's motive to sacrifice work environment for profit.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment. All of those things are the union (members) taking more of the profit. "work environment" (as you're using it) isn't some abstract good that the unions are protecting. It's "what do I have to do for the money I make?" Changing that balance one way is reducing the union members' take. Changing it the other way is increasing the union members' take, that is, trying to reduce a company's profit by increasing the union members' share of the revenue. We're still waiting for "an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut."
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        Not sure why you're trying to be snarky. I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money. I clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members. If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit", then so be it. Nitpicking on minutia (definition of clearly defined words) is a waste of everyone's time. >The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit. The specific evil being detrimental work environment, its obvious that unions are a balancing for to that.
        anamax 14y ago
        > Not sure why you're trying to be snarky. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm trying to point out that your thinking is muddled. > I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money. And the things that you listed were benefits received by union members, benefits that cost money, which reduces profit. What do you think the same money for less work is? > clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members. No one is suggesting that unions don't benefit their members. Your claim was that unions were combatting some evils. I asked for an example, and you started ranting about profits, so I pointed out that the only effect that unions have on profits is to increase expenses that directly benefit their members. > If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit Work environment is expense. Profit is revenue - expense. Which statement do you disagree with? Some work environment details affect quality and/or productivity and some don't. Of the former, some provide more increased revenue than their costs while others don't. Do you really want to argue that unions only ask for work environment and compensation things that "pay for themselves"? (Given your model of management, unions don't have to ask for those things.) If you've got examples of unions acting other than in their own self-interest, let's see them instead of vague theories. How can you be so certain that unions act a certain way yet not have any examples?

by anamax 14y ago

hackinthebochs 14y ago

Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good". Everyone always loves to simplify things down to their pet ideology.

anamax 14y ago
> Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good". The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit. Since that evil produces more money for the company, you need an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut. Unions are not new, so if you're going to suggest that they're useful for doing something, you should have actual examples of them doing said something.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Decreasing the company's profit doesn't necessarily equate to a union taking its "cut" (of the profits). Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment. Here the union is a check against a corporation's motive to sacrifice work environment for profit.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment. All of those things are the union (members) taking more of the profit. "work environment" (as you're using it) isn't some abstract good that the unions are protecting. It's "what do I have to do for the money I make?" Changing that balance one way is reducing the union members' take. Changing it the other way is increasing the union members' take, that is, trying to reduce a company's profit by increasing the union members' share of the revenue. We're still waiting for "an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut."
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      Not sure why you're trying to be snarky. I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money. I clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members. If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit", then so be it. Nitpicking on minutia (definition of clearly defined words) is a waste of everyone's time. >The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit. The specific evil being detrimental work environment, its obvious that unions are a balancing for to that.
      - anamax 14y ago
        > Not sure why you're trying to be snarky. I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm trying to point out that your thinking is muddled. > I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money. And the things that you listed were benefits received by union members, benefits that cost money, which reduces profit. What do you think the same money for less work is? > clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members. No one is suggesting that unions don't benefit their members. Your claim was that unions were combatting some evils. I asked for an example, and you started ranting about profits, so I pointed out that the only effect that unions have on profits is to increase expenses that directly benefit their members. > If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit Work environment is expense. Profit is revenue - expense. Which statement do you disagree with? Some work environment details affect quality and/or productivity and some don't. Of the former, some provide more increased revenue than their costs while others don't. Do you really want to argue that unions only ask for work environment and compensation things that "pay for themselves"? (Given your model of management, unions don't have to ask for those things.) If you've got examples of unions acting other than in their own self-interest, let's see them instead of vague theories. How can you be so certain that unions act a certain way yet not have any examples?