5 ms·

> Lots of research shows that generally places where unions exist have better work conditions and perform better over the long term. Do you have any non-partis

• dofm 3mo ago
  The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself. I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.
  • TheTaytay 3mo ago
    I think working conditions have changed enough since then to make a request for non-biased studies a reasonable one. Most debates about unions seem to boil down to “I just know” or anecdotes. I would expect unions to fund research to show that working conditions are better in union shops, but not include the fact that some unionized shops can’t compete in a market with non union shops and might go out of business. (But have great working conditions until the last day) And vice-versa for pro industry research. Unions are adversarial, and feel necessary to people that view employment or employers through that lens. It’s possible that we can still credit unions with the status quo, but 1they have nowhere near the adoption of vaccines to make the analogy a good one. I’d rather debate “which employers/industries” need unions than debate whether they are objectively good in all circumstances.
    • inigyou 3mo ago
      Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them? Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share honest financial numbers with their unions.
      • mcmcmc 3mo ago
        > Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). That’s not at all what a union is. Why else would federal workers need their own unions? The point of a union is collective bargaining power for labor. Federal workers have little to no bargaining power when budgets are set by Congress. Especially when they can’t strike.
        • inigyou 3mo ago
          I can't parse this comment in relation to the context.
          • mcmcmc 3mo ago
            This is what I was arguing against: > Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government).
          • senordevnyc 3mo ago
            They’re pointing out that calling the federal government “a big union” is inaccurate, and reasons why.
            • lukeschlather 3mo ago
              It's accurate. The constitution of the United States explicitly describes it as a union in the preamble.
              • ericmay 3mo ago
                > The constitution of the United States explicitly describes it as a union in the preamble. No, there's no relation.
              • mcmcmc 3mo ago
                Don’t be dense, we’re discussing labor unions, not all possible interpretations of the word “union”
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  • j16sdiz 3mo ago
    We have gone a long way since industrial revolution. e.g. Child labor now outlawed. There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change) Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.
    • inigyou 3mo ago
      What you described is the result of the government acting as one big, but very conservative, union.
    • unknownfuture 3mo ago
      Literally demonstrating the point in dofm's second paragraph right here...
      • dofm 3mo ago
        Thank you. Almost all of the US discourse around unions seems to involve accepting the literally cartoonish framing that the US corporate right managed to force into popular culture. The fact that union culture in the USA is broken is not a problem with the idea of unions. It's a problem with the USA.
        • unknownfuture 3mo ago
          Honestly it's hard to blame folks. The US (and Canada, where I'm from) has seen a 40+ year concerted effort to destroy unions and the propaganda runs deep. There's been a long-running cultural project to depict unions as purely lazy, corrupt, and self-dealing. That same project also involved demonizing social safety nets ("welfare queen") and public projects more broadly using the exact same rhetoric: some people might cheat so we must tear these systems down. It's a language that directs the anger of the aggrieved away from those in power toward those who are powerless, and for nearly a half a century it's been wildly successful.
    • dofm 3mo ago
      > Child labor now outlawed. For now. Many US states are currently trying to roll back these laws though, aren't they? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/22/child-labor-protections-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/22/child-labor-... https://www.justiceatwork.com/how-are-child-labor-laws-changing/ https://www.justiceatwork.com/how-are-child-labor-laws-chang... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-several-states-are-pushing-to-loosen-child-labor-restrictions https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-several-states-are-pus...
  • ericmay 3mo ago
    > The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself. I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been). > I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore. I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions? I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
    • dofm 3mo ago
      > I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been). > […] > I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Then you don't really know history.
      • ericmay 3mo ago
        I know history better than you do, generally speaking. You cherry-picked the wrong comment. Vaccines and vaccine adoption has nothing to do with unions nor are they even remotely comparable.
        • dofm 3mo ago
          I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy. (Though as it goes, I suspect vaccine rollout and universal healthcare does, in fact, owe some of its ability to function to the products of the organised labour movement; national, universal healthcare in the UK literally sprang from the first Labour government) If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
• bix6 3mo ago
  https://www.nber.org/digest/202508/unpacking-union-wage-premium https://www.nber.org/digest/202508/unpacking-union-wage-prem... They earn more and are more productive. Here is one Canadian study but I’m sure you can find more if you’re interested.
  • ericmay 3mo ago
    Thanks for sharing. I’ll take a look!