3 ms·
Unionization really only makes sense in industries where work is very much to spec, and many people perform the same function, to the same standard of quality,
by trhtrsh 14y ago
Unionization really only makes sense in industries where work is very much to spec, and many people perform the same function, to the same standard of quality, and there is no reason or benefit to exceed that quality. Otherwise, a unionized work force becomes a market for lemons, with everyone driving average quality down.
- debacle 14y agoYes, because there aren't national unions for professional engineers, doctors, lawyers, actors, writers, professional athletes, or teachers. The main role of a union is to provide for collective bargaining agreements.
- namdnay 14y agoThe unions for doctors and lawyers aren't really the same thing as "normal" unions. They're more advocacy based. The unions for teachers exist because teachers are (wrongly IMHO) considered by their employer to be in the parents poster's category. If teachers weren't considered a commodity I think they would have less need for unions. And professional athletes unions are usually restrained to sports where the employers are a cartel (or even a single entity). The cartel phenomenon is similar in the case of actors.
- hkmurakami 14y agoAnd professional athletes unions are usually restrained to sports where the employers are a cartel (or even a single entity). The cartel phenomenon is similar in the case of actors. Interesting point about the employer cartel, since the SV Tech Giants (Google, Apple, etc.) were outed as colluding to keep salaries down and not poach employees from one another earlier this year. Maybe that is a starting point for grounds to consider unionizing? Maybe?
- namdnay 14y agoI agree, if the companies collude to keep salaries down there is no reason employees should not collude to keep them up.