New evidence that strong unions reduce exploit inequality

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It does explain how libertarians are not union friendly.

I suppose, if you use your imagination, you can come to that conclusion.

 

[laughing dog]

It does explain how libertarians are not union friendly.

I suppose, if you use your imagination, you can come to that conclusion.

Does not take any imagination - permitting competing unions means the first union can be undercut or the employer can play them off each other. That is not union "friendly". Still waiting for you to show how libertarians are union friendly.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It does explain how libertarians are not union friendly.

I suppose, if you use your imagination, you can come to that conclusion.

Does not take any imagination - permitting competing unions means the first union can be undercut or the employer can play them off each other. That is not union "friendly". Still waiting for you to show how libertarians are union friendly.

You define friendly as "wanting laws that favor me instead of laws that favor the other side" and unfriendly as "wanting laws that favor the other side instead of laws that favor me." I don't define it that way, and I do not like or want either set of laws.

By your faulty definition I cannot meet your faulty definition. Take that as whatever sort of victory you want.

 

[laughing dog]

Does not take any imagination - permitting competing unions means the first union can be undercut or the employer can play them off each other. That is not union "friendly". Still waiting for you to show how libertarians are union friendly.

You define friendly as "wanting laws that favor me instead of laws that favor the other side" and unfriendly as "wanting laws that favor the other side instead of laws that favor me." I don't define it that way, and I do not like or want either set of laws.

I made no claim about laws. I made no definitions. Your response is based on delusions.

By your faulty definition I cannot meet your faulty definition. Take that as whatever sort of victory you want.

I simply have asked you to show how libertarians are union friendly. Apparently, your idea of union friendly is to permit as many competing unions as workers want. If that is your idea of union friendly, then that is your definition. Just don't be surprised when others do not agree that your position is "union friendly".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I made no claim about laws. I made no definitions. Your response is based on delusions.

By your faulty definition I cannot meet your faulty definition. Take that as whatever sort of victory you want.

I simply have asked you to show how libertarians are union friendly. Apparently, your idea of union friendly is to permit as many competing unions as workers want. If that is your idea of union friendly, then that is your definition. Just don't be surprised when others do not agree that your position is "union friendly".

Well, we’d need Jason to actually share an opinion to get anywhere here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

How so?

I thought the demise was that manufacturing jobs left the US for areas where labor and regulations led to much cheaper production.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, we’d need Jason to actually share an opinion to get anywhere here.

Already did, several times.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

How so?

I thought the demise was that manufacturing jobs left the US for areas where labor and regulations led to much cheaper production.

The demise of manufacturing jobs and union jobs are not the same thing. There are union jobs that are not manufacturing and vice-versa. If most workers in the US viewed Unions as a positive thing, then new workplaces would be Unionizing and the overall % of jobs that were Union would not have plummeted like it has. Many workers, including modest wage earners, don't support Unions because Unions often use dues to advance things that many workers do not agree with.

 

[DBT]

There are many reasons why union membership has declined....to the detriment of ordinary workers;

Australian Unions- Why is their membership declining? What does it mean for the ALP?

''There are multiple causes of the decline in the proportion of the Australian workforce that is unionised. These include casualization of the workforce, increase in the proportion of the workforce that is engaged as sub-contractors, manufacturing and services moving offshore, trade exposure of unionised enterprises to non-unionised enterprises both abroad and within Australia, increased restrictions on union right of entry and reputational damage to unions resulting from corruption.

But in my view one factor is perhaps more important than all of those listed above. This is the “free loader” problem. The free loader problem stems from the fact that the major benefits unions provide to workers are the wages and conditions that result from enterprise bargaining agreements (EBA’s) and that these benefits accrue to workers who are covered by the EBA whether or not they are members of the union.

Ask yourself these two questions:

If paying tax was voluntary how many people would pay it?
How many businesses are successful in charging for services that people can get for free?

If you think that the answer to one or both of these questions is “nil”, then the decline in union membership should not really come as a major surprise to you.''

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

That's just because the economy (thanks to IT) is strong. When the economy is weak and jobs dry up, unions become strong again. When robots get better at pushing service workers out of a job I think we'll see a return of unions

There's also different traditions of unions. In the English speaking world, unions have been happy to saw off the branch they sit on. Unions in central and northern Europe have always seen themselves as partners with the capitalists. They're primarily both focused on creating a strong company. The economy is Sweden and Germany (for example) is very strong today, much because our unions. They're not dead in these parts.

The tradition of the union matters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Why are almost all of the highest paying jobs non-union?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Why are almost all of the highest paying jobs non-union?

Why are so many of the lowest paying jobs non-union?

- - - Updated - - -

How so?

I thought the demise was that manufacturing jobs left the US for areas where labor and regulations led to much cheaper production.

The demise of manufacturing jobs and union jobs are not the same thing. There are union jobs that are not manufacturing and vice-versa. If most workers in the US viewed Unions as a positive thing...

Lots of stuff are positive things that the right-wing voters are against because they have been told to be against them.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why are so many of the lowest paying jobs non-union?

- - - Updated - - -

How so?

I thought the demise was that manufacturing jobs left the US for areas where labor and regulations led to much cheaper production.

The demise of manufacturing jobs and union jobs are not the same thing. There are union jobs that are not manufacturing and vice-versa. If most workers in the US viewed Unions as a positive thing...

Lots of stuff are positive things that the right-wing voters are against because they have been told to be against them.

There are tons of liberal and moderate voters who are also highly skeptical of unions and would hesitate to join a new one, even if they understand the positive contributions Unions have made. And it has nothing to do with what "they are told", but what they directly witness in the behavior of many unions and their leaders, ranging from the long history of criminal corruption and use of violence and intimidation to policies that harm most competent workers, like opposition to the firing of clearly incompetent workers and opposition to merit-based hiring, promotion, and pay.

In fact, a couple days ago I was drinking with 4 other people, all of whom have voted Democrat our whole lives, 3 have been or are in a Union with 1 other growing up with a Union father. 4 of 5 of us were highly critical of Unions and in favor of the SCOTUS ruling because of the rampant use of Union dues for political agendas that do not benefit and often harm many of the workers forced to pay those dues.

 

[laughing dog]

In fact, a couple days ago I was drinking with 4 other people, all of whom have voted Democrat our whole lives, 3 have been or are in a Union with 1 other growing up with a Union father. 4 of 5 of us were highly critical of Unions and in favor of the SCOTUS ruling because of the rampant use of Union dues for political agendas that do not benefit and often harm many of the workers forced to pay those dues.

Do you not find a parallel between your position and that of people who did not vote for HRC but think we are worse off now?

 

[ronburgundy]

In fact, a couple days ago I was drinking with 4 other people, all of whom have voted Democrat our whole lives, 3 have been or are in a Union with 1 other growing up with a Union father. 4 of 5 of us were highly critical of Unions and in favor of the SCOTUS ruling because of the rampant use of Union dues for political agendas that do not benefit and often harm many of the workers forced to pay those dues.

Do you not find a parallel between your position and that of people who did not vote for HRC but think we are worse off now?

No, because were are objectively worse off with Trump than Hillary, whereas many workers are better off without a Union, such as many competent workers who tend to be harmed by Union efforts to disregard merit when it comes to hiring, firing, promotions, and pay.
The fact that Unions have in general served a historically positive role in raising average wages and workplace safety standards does not mean that all current workers would be better off if their workplace were Unionized. Fortunately for their own well being, many workers are able to understand this distinction that you don't seem able to. I tend to make friends with intellectually competent people. So this group was people who are objectively more competent at their jobs than average. Thus, like most competent Union workers they get annoyed by some of their grossly incompetent and lazy coworkers who cause countless negatives to competent workers and yet don't get fired and get the same pay.

 

[laughing dog]

No, because were are objectively worse off with Trump than Hillary, whereas many workers are better off without a Union, such as many competent workers who tend to be harmed by Union efforts to disregard merit when it comes to hiring, firing, promotions, and pay.

I find the parallel - instead of staying in the union to move for change, they leave which insures the allegedly bad outcomes continue.

The fact that Unions have in general served a historically positive role in raising average wages and workplace safety standards does not mean that all current workers would be better off if their workplace were Unionized.

I agree, although I don't see anyone advocating unionization for everyone.

Fortunately for their own well being, many workers are able to understand this distinction that you don't seem able to. I tend to make friends with intellectually competent people. So this group was people who are objectively more competent at their jobs than average. Thus, like most competent Union workers they get annoyed by some of their grossly incompetent and lazy coworkers who cause countless negatives to competent workers and yet don't get fired and get the same pay.

Intellectually competent workers with even a modicum of imagination ought to be able to understand that unions do not all have the same goals, methods or organizations. And intellectually competent workers would also know that there are plenty of grossly incompetent and/or lazy workers who do not get fired even though there is no union.

 

[lpetrich]

Why are almost all of the highest paying jobs non-union?

That is because their labor unions are usually not called labor unions, but "professional associations" and "Chambers of Commerce" and "corporate-executive search committees" and the like.

 

[Toni]

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.

Why are almost all of the highest paying jobs non-union?

Why does my husband's union job pay nearly 3 times what I earn?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why are so many of the lowest paying jobs non-union?

That's not a rebuttal.

If good wages come from unions why are most of the good jobs not union?

Showing that there are bad non-union jobs is not a rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In fact, a couple days ago I was drinking with 4 other people, all of whom have voted Democrat our whole lives, 3 have been or are in a Union with 1 other growing up with a Union father. 4 of 5 of us were highly critical of Unions and in favor of the SCOTUS ruling because of the rampant use of Union dues for political agendas that do not benefit and often harm many of the workers forced to pay those dues.

Do you not find a parallel between your position and that of people who did not vote for HRC but think we are worse off now?

No.

The poor worker benefits from being in a union where his inferiority won't be measured.

The good worker benefits from not being in a union so his ability will be recognized and rewarded. (This sometimes involves changing employers, but it does happen.)

Is it not obvious that in a marketplace with a mixture of union and non-union employers that the non-union employers will get the good workers?