The discourse around unions is so weird.

A bunch of people form an organization so that they can work together to sell stuff.

When they're selling widgets, or other people's labor, we call those people "management" and we call their organization "business" and it's the standard way of doing things.

When they're selling their own labor, we call it a "union" and suddenly people have Opinions about whether they're really a good thing or not.

If Bob's Heavy Manufacturing Concern can collectively bargain with its customers when selling its Retro Encabulators, then Bob's employees should be able to collectively bargain with its customer i.e. Bob when selling their product i.e. their labor.

▲

maerF0x0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As i see it, Unions are groups of employees where they have agreed to cooperate to get a better group outcome than they might be able to negotiate individually. It often caps the outcomes for the very very best, and raises the outcomes for the very very bottom. But across a wide swath they are earning more, or treated better, than they would be had they tried to do it alone. TBD if the union fees negate more or less than this gain.

IMO Cooperatives are a better model, it combines cooperative behavior with the dual risk/profit model of entrepreneurship.

▲

infecto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t think it’s weird. Why should a union be a protected class that you cannot fire? If a company can find people to work cheaper than what the union offers why should they have to continue to employ union workers? Pros/Cons to everything. I generally sit into the stance that the free movement of labor is one of the things the US gets right.

▲

Erem 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They’re not a protected class that you can’t fire, unless the company signs a contract to that effect with the vendor selling them labor (the union)

▲

infecto 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is that correct? I thought the NLRA was shaped in such a way that you cannot fire someone because they are in a union. You cannot refuse to hire known union supporters.

I liken to being similar to a protected class that you cannot discriminate against.

Edit: why would this get downvoted? If I am wrong about the NLRA I am happy to be corrected.

▲

nielsbot an hour ago | parent [-]

you can fire union members you can’t fire people for organizing.

	▲	infecto an hour ago \| parent [-]
		To be clear you can fire union members but not because they are in a union, support a union or organizing to be in a union. Very similar to a protected class.

▲

retardkiller an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think where it breaks down though is if a company manages to monopolize the market we all recognize this is bad. If a union tries to monopolize the labor supply to a company, most pro-union opinions celebrate this and argue the company should have to negotiate with the union to find a rate rather than being able to just shit-can everyone in the union and move on to the next guy.

Union itself I'd agree could function as basically a corporation of workers. That's not on face a bad thing, but the devil is in the details of what kind of violence (via law or otherwise) is used to try and use that to form a monopoly. Of course the companies are no better in this regard, they use the violence of the state to monopolize markets as well.

▲

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Aren't exclusive contracts pretty common in business? There's a big difference between monopolizing the supply to a single customer, which happens all the time, and monopolizing an entire market.

▲

timfsu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but they expire in ways that unions don’t

	▲	wat10000 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Does anything prevent a company from negotiating a time-limited contract with a union, other than the company's ability to negotiate?

▲

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes if it's just a voluntary contract I see nothing sinister. If some employees form a union that's not sinister. If the company signs a contract with them that's not sinister. But if some employees want a union and that automatically means they've forced the other employees to join rather than allowing the other employees to pick to work outside the union, or automatically means the company is involuntarily bound to contract, that would be a bit sinister.

▲

nielsbot an hour ago | parent | next [-]

unions don’t work unless everyone’s in them.

it’s a free country—individuals have freedom to just work at a non union shop.

▲

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Involuntarily binding the company to the contract would be bad, I agree.

But what's wrong with forcing the other employees to join to keep their jobs? That is fundamentally a requirement on the company, that they only hire people in the union. And that's no different from any other sort of exclusive contract. If a restaurant has an exclusive contract with Coke, is it sinister to say that Pepsi employees can't supply them, and they have to join Coke if they want to do that?

▲

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm saying suppose some employees decide to form a union. And the company doesn't consent to sign an exclusive contract. As I understand it there are unions advocating that workers that didn't agree to a union still have to be bound to it anyway.

It's my understanding in some states in the US it's possible a worker will be forced to join a union if a certain number of other workers want a union, even if neither the worker nor the company hiring them consent to it. In about half of states under "right to work" though they do give employees the option to not join the union if they don't want to.

This happened to me when I was working a ~minimum wage job at a grocery store. At the time it was not a right to work state, and I was forced to join the UFCW. The union I was forced to join then made me pay dues, pushing me below minimum wage.

	▲	nielsbot an hour ago \| parent [-]
		how much were your dues? and you were getting $7.25/hr?