New evidence that strong unions reduce exploit inequality

[Underseer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/business/labor-unions-income-inequality.html

There you go: the real reason conservatives and libertarians (who are totally different, they just happen to keep taking the same positions on the same issues using the same bumper sticker arguments) oppose unions is that it interferes with the power of the economic elites.

What's the point in establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners have a say in how things turn out?

 

[Harry Bosch]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/business/labor-unions-income-inequality.html

There you go: the real reason conservatives and libertarians (who are totally different, they just happen to keep taking the same positions on the same issues using the same bumper sticker arguments) oppose unions is that it interferes with the power of the economic elites.

What's the point in establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners have a say in how things turn out?

If the left continues to be divided, unions are dead. They are greatly weakened now, and the continual right wing drip will make them obsolete.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/business/labor-unions-income-inequality.html

There you go: the real reason conservatives and libertarians (who are totally different, they just happen to keep taking the same positions on the same issues using the same bumper sticker arguments) oppose unions is that it interferes with the power of the economic elites.

What's the point in establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners have a say in how things turn out?

If the left continues to be divided, unions are dead. They are greatly weakened now, and the continual right wing drip will make them obsolete.

The left is not divided. The Democrats are. Conservative Democrats took over the Democratic party during Clinton's "third way" bullshit.

 

[Harry Bosch]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/business/labor-unions-income-inequality.html

There you go: the real reason conservatives and libertarians (who are totally different, they just happen to keep taking the same positions on the same issues using the same bumper sticker arguments) oppose unions is that it interferes with the power of the economic elites.

What's the point in establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners have a say in how things turn out?

If the left continues to be divided, unions are dead. They are greatly weakened now, and the continual right wing drip will make them obsolete.

The left is not divided. The Democrats are. Conservative Democrats took over the Democratic party during Clinton's "third way" bullshit.

Yea, keep thinking that the left can win without moderates, and the unions and everyone else will continue to suffer. You'll win a lot of moral victories, but not many elections...

 

[fromderinside]

I don't care if you don't want to hear this. Unions can ask members for contributions. They can ask for contributions based on gains by 'members' and non members through their representation of members with employers. Unions can actually negotiate with businesses to be paid for negotiating with them to keep john down on the farm so to speak. Happy members make happy employees.

If you don't want to tip. Sobeit. If you don't tip you can be identified as one who is 'one way' because you don't tip or contribute when you gain advantages negotiated by members.

No you don't have to pay dues, you don't have to tip. You can't stop from being broadcast as one who isn't supporting members yet accepting gains made by members.

There are lots of things unions can do to encourage one to do her part without making anything mandatory.

Unions are here forever.

I'm in favor of voluntary contributions because I believe having things so minimizes graft and cronyism in unions.

I believe that if unions open up their books it will ultimately lead to businesses opening up their books.

 

[Derec]

There is some good the unions do, but they also do things like trying to restrict competition, arcane rules about who can do what, focus on seniority over performance. The worst thing is their political engagement that goes well beyond advocating for legitimate union issues. A particularly eggregious example is a teachers union in California supporting cop-killer Wesley Cook (who goes by fake name Mumia Abu Jamal).

 

[Canard DuJour]

The left is not divided. The Democrats are. Conservative Democrats took over the Democratic party during Clinton's "third way" bullshit.

Yea, keep thinking that the left can win without moderates, and the unions and everyone else will continue to suffer. You'll win a lot of moral victories, but not many elections...

I'd argue the precise opposite. If you keep chasing the centre ground to the right, you concede the narrative and eventually sound like a half-arsed version of your opponent, who moves further right and wins anyway. Conservative-lite "centrists" like yer Clintons and Blairs are a big part of why the unions are fucked.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Funny thing is.. the cited study doesn't so much find "Fresh Proof That Strong Unions Help Reduce Income Inequality", as refute an absurd rationalisation of existing evidence by "most economists". Apparently economists had convinced themselves that the overwhelming negative correlation of inequality with union density didn't really have anything to do with unions, but demand for skilled labour, of which unions were just an artifact - "and thus unions themselves have little if any direct effect on inequality"



Oh lordy, these fuckers really know which side their bread's buttered on, don't they. It's like some rigorous blindness to anything that might be against the interests of the ruling elite.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/business/labor-unions-income-inequality.html

There you go: the real reason conservatives and libertarians (who are totally different, they just happen to keep taking the same positions on the same issues using the same bumper sticker arguments) oppose unions is that it interferes with the power of the economic elites.

What's the point in establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners have a say in how things turn out?

I have explained before the libertarian (and Libertarian) position on unions, how we are union friendly. I challenged you to support your false claim, so you fled that thread and started a new one where you how libertarians are anti-union.

How many times do you want to be wrong about this? Are you hoping we will become as anti-union as you are?

If I challenge you to support your claim will you flee this thread and start a new one? That is a fallacy known as the Ham Hightail.

 

[laughing dog]

I have explained before the libertarian (and Libertarian) position on unions, how we are union friendly. I challenged you to support your false claim, so you fled that thread and started a new one where you how libertarians are anti-union.

Unions are most effective when they have no free riders (non-members who receive the same compensation) and free association permits free riders. So, despite your claim that libertarians are union friendly, it should come to no surprise that people who live in the real world do not view the libertarian position as "friendly".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, despite your claim that libertarians are union friendly, it should come to no surprise that people who live in the real world do not view the libertarian position as "friendly".

I dispute your claim that you live in the real world. Too much of what you have written has no basis in reality.

 

[laughing dog]

So, despite your claim that libertarians are union friendly, it should come to no surprise that people who live in the real world do not view the libertarian position as "friendly".

I dispute your claim that you live in the real world. Too much of what you have written has no basis in reality.

Nonetheless, the libertarian position that enables free riders in collective bargaining is not considered "friendly" by unions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's only a problem because federal law prevents separate negotiation with non-members. Hmmm, didn't I say the problem with unions was the government?

Oh, I forget, in your alternate version of reality, everything is malleable except for government edicts.

 

[DBT]

It was unionism that improved pay and conditions for ordinary workers. It is in the best interest of ordinary workers to be in a union.

 

[laughing dog]

It's only a problem because federal law prevents separate negotiation with non-members. Hmmm, didn't I say the problem with unions was the government?

So a libertarian is in favor of gov't restricting freedom of contract? Fascinating.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's only a problem because federal law prevents separate negotiation with non-members. Hmmm, didn't I say the problem with unions was the government?

So a libertarian is in favor of gov't restricting freedom of contract? Fascinating.

You just read that backwards, but for you that's normal.

 

[laughing dog]

It's only a problem because federal law prevents separate negotiation with non-members. Hmmm, didn't I say the problem with unions was the government?

So a libertarian is in favor of gov't restricting freedom of contract? Fascinating.

You just read that backwards, but for you that's normal.

There are at least two ways to interpret the relevant part of your response. One way is to note that Federal law does not prevent free riders, but it makes free riding less damaging towards unions. If that law were not in effect, federal law would be closer to the libertarian position. The libertarian position makes free riding more damaging towards unions, which is why unions and rational people do not think libertarians are "friendly" to unions. At best, libertarians are not antagonistic towards unions, which is not the same as "friendly".

The other way to interpret your response is that the current laws makes unions a problem. But that is not a union friendly view, but anti-union view.

If you have an alternative interpretation of your position that is consistent with the claim that libertarians have a "friendly" position towards unions. it would help your case to spell it out.

 

[ronburgundy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/business/labor-unions-income-inequality.html

There you go: the real reason conservatives and libertarians (who are totally different, they just happen to keep taking the same positions on the same issues using the same bumper sticker arguments) oppose unions is that it interferes with the power of the economic elites.

What's the point in establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if those dirty commoners have a say in how things turn out?

If the left continues to be divided, unions are dead. They are greatly weakened now, and the continual right wing drip will make them obsolete.

The left is not divided.

True, the left is strongly united, in its opposition to the core liberal and enlightenment values responsible for most intellectual, moral, and political progress in the last 500 years. These are values like free speech, intellectual honesty, and respect for the individual person rather than treating them according to categorical grouping.

In fact, it is these anti-liberal aspects of the left that is largely responsible for the demise of Unions. That demise was not primarily caused by attacks from capitalists, but erosion of support from workers themselves who rightly oppose Union efforts to protect the grossly incompetent from workplace consequences, undermine merit-based differences in pay, creating massive inefficiency via absurd restrictions/limits on the tasks each worker can do, and using union dues to engage in far-leftist politics on issues that have nothing to do with the shared interests and objectives of its union workers. Plus, their advocacy of workers is often inconsistent and dependent on that worker's political leanings, such as whether the AAUP get's involved in cases of University professors being attacked, fired, or pressured to resign for comments they make.

Unions have done a lot of good, but corrupt and/or dogmatic leftists that pollute union leadership are heavily responsible for the demise of Unions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You just read that backwards, but for you that's normal.

There are at least two ways to interpret the relevant part of your response. One way is to note that Federal law does not prevent free riders, but it makes free riding less damaging towards unions. If that law were not in effect, federal law would be closer to the libertarian position. The libertarian position makes free riding more damaging towards unions, which is why unions and rational people do not think libertarians are "friendly" to unions. At best, libertarians are not antagonistic towards unions, which is not the same as "friendly".

The other way to interpret your response is that the current laws makes unions a problem. But that is not a union friendly view, but anti-union view.

If you have an alternative interpretation of your position that is consistent with the claim that libertarians have a "friendly" position towards unions. it would help your case to spell it out.

I started by describing the way it is right now. Like it or not, the current law is the current law.

Under current law, if a business has a union, then all employees in the class represented by the union are represented by the union. Suppose there were 75 employees in the group and 50 of them were in the union. Therefore the additional 25 are represented whether they want it nor not. That is current law. That's also why we have a "free rider" problem.

Suppose one of those 25 goes to the boss and says "hey boss, I'm not in the union, let's hammer out our own agreement separate from that in the union. That way I'm no longer a free rider." The boss can only say "if I do that the union will have me in front of the government before the ink is dry on our agreement and I will lose." That's the way it is, whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not."

Suppose those 25 get together and say "hey, we don't like that union, let us form our own separate union." The separate union will be disbanded by the primary union because federal law won't allow two unions for one group of employees. There could be a separate union in that business for a separate group of employees, but not for the same group of employees. That's the way it is, whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not.

That is clearly what I meant. Only a deliberate misreading can produce any other readings of what I wrote. I'm describing the way things are, whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not.

Now if you want my opinion, which was also in there, you can find it. I said that the law preventing separate negotiation with non-members was a problem. I didn't say it was good, I didn't come out in favor of government restricting freedom of contract. I said that the law restricting freedom of contract was a bad thing. That is clearly what I meant. Only a deliberate misreading can produce any other readings of what I wrote.

 

[laughing dog]

You just read that backwards, but for you that's normal.

There are at least two ways to interpret the relevant part of your response. One way is to note that Federal law does not prevent free riders, but it makes free riding less damaging towards unions. If that law were not in effect, federal law would be closer to the libertarian position. The libertarian position makes free riding more damaging towards unions, which is why unions and rational people do not think libertarians are "friendly" to unions. At best, libertarians are not antagonistic towards unions, which is not the same as "friendly".

The other way to interpret your response is that the current laws makes unions a problem. But that is not a union friendly view, but anti-union view.

If you have an alternative interpretation of your position that is consistent with the claim that libertarians have a "friendly" position towards unions. it would help your case to spell it out.

I started by describing the way it is right now. Like it or not, the current law is the current law.

Under current law, if a business has a union, then all employees in the class represented by the union are represented by the union. Suppose there were 75 employees in the group and 50 of them were in the union. Therefore the additional 25 are represented whether they want it nor not. That is current law. That's also why we have a "free rider" problem.

Suppose one of those 25 goes to the boss and says "hey boss, I'm not in the union, let's hammer out our own agreement separate from that in the union. That way I'm no longer a free rider." The boss can only say "if I do that the union will have me in front of the government before the ink is dry on our agreement and I will lose." That's the way it is, whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not."

Suppose those 25 get together and say "hey, we don't like that union, let us form our own separate union." The separate union will be disbanded by the primary union because federal law won't allow two unions for one group of employees. There could be a separate union in that business for a separate group of employees, but not for the same group of employees. That's the way it is, whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not.

That is clearly what I meant. Only a deliberate misreading can produce any other readings of what I wrote. I'm describing the way things are, whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not.

Now if you want my opinion, which was also in there, you can find it. I said that the law preventing separate negotiation with non-members was a problem. I didn't say it was good, I didn't come out in favor of government restricting freedom of contract. I said that the law restricting freedom of contract was a bad thing. That is clearly what I meant. Only a deliberate misreading can produce any other readings of what I wrote.

Thank you for your explanation. I hoped that your explanation would give the basis for your original claim of "how we are union friendly." It does explain how libertarians are not union friendly.