6 ms·

This is an excellent example why unions are wrong solution to a bigger problem - lack of universal healthcare, free education and guaranteed pension. If we had

This is an excellent example why unions are wrong solution to a bigger problem - lack of universal healthcare, free education and guaranteed pension. If we had the three above - there won't be a need for unions because you are not loosing _everything_ when you are loosing a job. Until this bigger problem is fixed unions will remain one of the very few things workers can do to improve their odds in life. So you can't be for or against them - it is the only logical outcome of the current social order.

chiefgeek 6y ago
That's a great point that never occurred to me! I always sort of hold both sides of the argument over unions in my head and can never reconcile them.
- RobertKerans 6y ago
  If that were correct, why do unions exist in western European countries? I understand from a US point of view, fixing [what are to an outsider's eyes] poor worker protections and a crazy medical system would help (if on the flipside creating vast, black-hole-like, tax-funded bureaucracies), but I think it misses the point of unions slightly.
RobertKerans 6y ago
Those three things absolutely do not obviate unions. The aim is protection at work at a granular level that [ideally] is sensitive to specific workplaces. I would kinda agree with the last paragraph though: despite the potential for moral hazard and for corruption there isn't a lot else that can counterbalance the immense power over workers that companies have, regulation alone is too broad-brush
LordDragonfang 6y ago
>So you can't be for or against them If there's one thing that my decade of internet commenting experience has taught me, it's that some people will always find a way to be dogmatically for or against any conceivable position.
claudeganon 6y ago
...but Unions and union-backed political parties are who won all of these benefits in social democracies? You seem to have the entire thing backwards: the failure to build and grow unions in the US has resulted an absence of power and political representation for working people. Without this counterbalance, the rich and corporations have used the state to enshrine benefits for themselves and total power over workers.
- capdeck 6y ago
  Don't you think that if we have to have unions to achieve political representation -- there is something really wrong with our political process. If I am in a party and / or a union - how does that (not) help with representation? Why do I even have to be in the union to be represented?
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    Collective problems require collective action. We aren’t born into a just or meritocratic world, but one defined by the wealthy and powerful, who themselves form blocs to defend their interests. You can certainly try to take them on by yourself, but history suggests you won’t be very successful.

chiefgeek 6y ago

That's a great point that never occurred to me! I always sort of hold both sides of the argument over unions in my head and can never reconcile them.

RobertKerans 6y ago
If that were correct, why do unions exist in western European countries? I understand from a US point of view, fixing [what are to an outsider's eyes] poor worker protections and a crazy medical system would help (if on the flipside creating vast, black-hole-like, tax-funded bureaucracies), but I think it misses the point of unions slightly.

RobertKerans 6y ago

Those three things absolutely do not obviate unions. The aim is protection at work at a granular level that [ideally] is sensitive to specific workplaces. I would kinda agree with the last paragraph though: despite the potential for moral hazard and for corruption there isn't a lot else that can counterbalance the immense power over workers that companies have, regulation alone is too broad-brush

LordDragonfang 6y ago

>So you can't be for or against them If there's one thing that my decade of internet commenting experience has taught me, it's that some people will always find a way to be dogmatically for or against any conceivable position.

claudeganon 6y ago

...but Unions and union-backed political parties are who won all of these benefits in social democracies? You seem to have the entire thing backwards: the failure to build and grow unions in the US has resulted an absence of power and political representation for working people. Without this counterbalance, the rich and corporations have used the state to enshrine benefits for themselves and total power over workers.

capdeck 6y ago
Don't you think that if we have to have unions to achieve political representation -- there is something really wrong with our political process. If I am in a party and / or a union - how does that (not) help with representation? Why do I even have to be in the union to be represented?
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Collective problems require collective action. We aren’t born into a just or meritocratic world, but one defined by the wealthy and powerful, who themselves form blocs to defend their interests. You can certainly try to take them on by yourself, but history suggests you won’t be very successful.