4 ms·

Not all of those were instances of the management purposely screwing people, but let's suppose some of them were. Should the conclusion then be that we should f

Not all of those were instances of the management purposely screwing people, but let's suppose some of them were. Should the conclusion then be that we should find ways to prevent that from happening again, or should it be that two wrongs make a right?

cogman10 11mo ago
Not all businesses fail because of unions, but let's suppose some of them did. Should the conclusion then be that we should find ways to prevent that from happening again, or should it be that two wrongs make a right? It goes both ways. There are plenty of nations with strong unions throughout. In the US some work is primarily done by unions (such as trade work). The fact that someone can pull up an example where a union caused a business to go under doesn't make me think "we should eliminate unions". It doesn't even make me think "We should limit union negotiation powers" primarily because unions rights have been curtailed since the Reagan era. If you wanted to convince me to get rid of unions, you'd do it by setting up robust workers rights nationally which unions provide.
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  > It goes both ways. That's the point. We should prevent management from destroying productive companies and prevent unions from doing it, instead of saying "what about those other guys" to justify the bad behavior of either of them. > In the US some work is primarily done by unions (such as trade work). You're referring to some of the least efficient industries in the US with high levels of regulatory capture. The fact that there is no test-based path to occupational licensing in many trades, only multi-year "apprenticeship" (i.e. permission from an incumbent), is one of the big reasons construction costs so much, people can't afford housing and government construction projects consistently blow the budget. > If you wanted to convince me to get rid of unions, you'd do it by setting up robust workers rights nationally which unions provide. Most "worker protections" are nothing better than highly inefficient alternatives to unemployment insurance. If you have competitive markets then you don't need regulatory protections because companies are subject to competitive pressure. If you don't have competitive markets then you're unconditionally screwed and the first thing you need is to fix that.
  - overfeed 11mo ago
    > We should prevent management from destroying productive companies and prevent unions from doing it, instead of saying "what about those other guys" to justify the bad behavior of either of them. Im not justifying anyone, I'm suggesting a pragmatic, imperfect solution to a clear power imbalance. There's only one way to treat a counterpart who repeatedly defects on the iterated prisoners dilemma, and its not waiting for them to unilaterally start cooperating.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      > There's only one way to treat a counterpart who repeatedly defects on the iterated prisoners dilemma, and its not waiting for them to unilaterally start cooperating. Except that there isn't only one way, there are two. The first is that you keep playing with the defector and start defecting yourself, hoping that they unilaterally start cooperating. The second is that you quit playing with the defector and go play with someone else. And which one of those is likely to work out better for you?
      - overfeed 11mo ago
        Now apply your 2 options to American workers and see which one's feasible.
        AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        How is it infeasible to quit working for someone and go work for someone else?
        overfeed 11mo ago
        When employers act like cartels and connive to not compete on salary, directly[1] or indirectly[2] 1. E.g. Steve Job's email to Eric Schmidt 2. E.g. the Work Number as a specific instance
  - cogman10 11mo ago
- FrustratedMonky 11mo ago
  "he fact that someone can pull up an example where a union caused a business to go under doesn't make me think "we should eliminate unions"" It seems here it does. For years every time a company fails that also happened to have a union, the union gets blamed. Never mind the management decision. It's just a common flame bait for some groups to hate unions. That group doesn't actually reasonably think out these things. It's like 'woke', the word 'union' is a key word that some groups use to label others for hate. They aren't sitting back and making an economic argument.

cogman10 11mo ago

Not all businesses fail because of unions, but let's suppose some of them did. Should the conclusion then be that we should find ways to prevent that from happening again, or should it be that two wrongs make a right? It goes both ways. There are plenty of nations with strong unions throughout. In the US some work is primarily done by unions (such as trade work). The fact that someone can pull up an example where a union caused a business to go under doesn't make me think "we should eliminate unions". It doesn't even make me think "We should limit union negotiation powers" primarily because unions rights have been curtailed since the Reagan era. If you wanted to convince me to get rid of unions, you'd do it by setting up robust workers rights nationally which unions provide.

AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
> It goes both ways. That's the point. We should prevent management from destroying productive companies and prevent unions from doing it, instead of saying "what about those other guys" to justify the bad behavior of either of them. > In the US some work is primarily done by unions (such as trade work). You're referring to some of the least efficient industries in the US with high levels of regulatory capture. The fact that there is no test-based path to occupational licensing in many trades, only multi-year "apprenticeship" (i.e. permission from an incumbent), is one of the big reasons construction costs so much, people can't afford housing and government construction projects consistently blow the budget. > If you wanted to convince me to get rid of unions, you'd do it by setting up robust workers rights nationally which unions provide. Most "worker protections" are nothing better than highly inefficient alternatives to unemployment insurance. If you have competitive markets then you don't need regulatory protections because companies are subject to competitive pressure. If you don't have competitive markets then you're unconditionally screwed and the first thing you need is to fix that.
- overfeed 11mo ago
  > We should prevent management from destroying productive companies and prevent unions from doing it, instead of saying "what about those other guys" to justify the bad behavior of either of them. Im not justifying anyone, I'm suggesting a pragmatic, imperfect solution to a clear power imbalance. There's only one way to treat a counterpart who repeatedly defects on the iterated prisoners dilemma, and its not waiting for them to unilaterally start cooperating.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    > There's only one way to treat a counterpart who repeatedly defects on the iterated prisoners dilemma, and its not waiting for them to unilaterally start cooperating. Except that there isn't only one way, there are two. The first is that you keep playing with the defector and start defecting yourself, hoping that they unilaterally start cooperating. The second is that you quit playing with the defector and go play with someone else. And which one of those is likely to work out better for you?
    - overfeed 11mo ago
      Now apply your 2 options to American workers and see which one's feasible.
      - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        How is it infeasible to quit working for someone and go work for someone else?
        overfeed 11mo ago
        When employers act like cartels and connive to not compete on salary, directly[1] or indirectly[2] 1. E.g. Steve Job's email to Eric Schmidt 2. E.g. the Work Number as a specific instance
- cogman10 11mo ago
FrustratedMonky 11mo ago
"he fact that someone can pull up an example where a union caused a business to go under doesn't make me think "we should eliminate unions"" It seems here it does. For years every time a company fails that also happened to have a union, the union gets blamed. Never mind the management decision. It's just a common flame bait for some groups to hate unions. That group doesn't actually reasonably think out these things. It's like 'woke', the word 'union' is a key word that some groups use to label others for hate. They aren't sitting back and making an economic argument.