Rolls and Dangers of Unions

Posted by FlukeMan2 10 years, 10 months ago to Economics
68 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I've been thinking of making a Khan Academy style video explaining the rolls and dangers of unions. People retain ideas best when they're put into a kind of narrative (historical, or theoretical/hypothetical). I need narratives like this to explain the potential danger of unions. I really want to highlight how unions can be fully deserving of the term monopoly.

The following video provides such a narrative.
Grammy-nominated composer speaks up against union blockage of Game recordings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvraGNf...

I am not 100% anti-union; I just want the potential danger of unions to become common knowledge. I'd also like an Objectivist-ish understanding of the purpose/roll/value of unions. Are there ways those purposes/rolls/values can be filled without unions. Narratives (historical, or theoretical/hypothetical) for this would also be good.

Another thing...I prefer that language be kept clean and tones level. Please understand that if you make a claim and I question it, then I'm not trying to attack you personally; I'm trying to understand you. If someone (he doesn't know who he is) starts trolling please ignore him and stay on topic. I'd really appreciate it.

Now on to the rolls and dangers of unions.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The government is the only employer of many different types of work. Examples are postal workers, the military, the IRS, etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The donations from the public employee unions outnumber those from most taxpayers. The only competition to the unions when it comes to Democrat politicians are the rich environmentalists. Money matters far more than votes to Democrat politicians. Moreover, taxpayers are more Republican than Democrat. Democrat voters have a significant percentage of moochers. Consequently the taxpayers have no effective check on the Democrat politicians in many districts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This was out of the first Atlas Shrugged movie. Gwen Ives was Rearden's secretary. When Rearden said "File it.", he meant to toss that piece of mail from the United Metal Workers Guild. He said that after having told his secretary to do the same in response to a similar inquiry from the State Science Institute.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by FlukeMan2 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't taxpayers (the people paying the bills of government) elect people to go to the negotiating table for them. What is inherently bad about relationships between elected officials and public employee unions?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago
    I have the same opinion about unions that Hank Rearden did.

    Gwen Ives: United Metal Workers Guild?
    Rearden: (Chuckles) File it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The person paying the bills is not at the negotiating table. In the private sector, ownership and management have a say. With government unions, there is an incestuous "union" between the Wesley Mouches and the Fred Kinnons.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
    Unions were beneficial at a time and with employers who were abusive of their workers. This can happen when the employer (or some few number of employers) has such a large presence that there's little opportunity to work elsewhere for anything comparable. In that situation, a union can be beneficial in counterbalancing the power of the employer.

    The danger is that once the environment changes such that other opportunities of comparable employment exist - thus allowing labor to move if working conditions or wages are unacceptable - the union has powers that make it impossible to remove. Thus, re-authorization should not be automatic, it should be voted on by private ballot every year. Union dues should not be automatically deducted from pay checks, it should be required to be paid by each laborer. The union members should be able to designate what their dues money can be used for - admin staff, training and other worker support activities, and political action money should all be independently authorized.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by FlukeMan2 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What you seem to be saying is that the government is the only buyer of certain kinds of work (only employer of certain kinds of employees). What kinds of work or employees does only the government buy or employ? There is more than one government entity in the United States. Does that fact have an effect on your reasoning?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by FlukeMan2 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "In terms of computering, given the broad and deep culture of self-employment and entrepreneurship, it would be hard to say where a computer user group is a trade association, a business meeting, or a labor union hiring hall. I think that is a good model."
    I don't think I understand what you're saying there...like at all. Could you elaborate?

    I'll add "informing members of wage rates" to the list of rolls of unions.

    "Any employer who had an unsafe workplace could be sanctioned legally and financially (fined by law) whether or not anyone actually was injured."
    I understand where you're coming from, but what's to stop governments using this as a justification for a power grab?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Pretty much no matter where you work, some other company could bid for your skills. We do not have competing governments in America. So, the monopoly in government was balanced with civil service. But laws were passed making it illegal for government employees to strike. So, they formed unions. One bad thing led to another. You cannot just slap a bandaid on this and make it go away. You have a deep culture to change.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 10 months ago
    Ayn Rand once called unions the best hope for a new capitalist economy. I am pretty much pro-union, in the same sense that I am pro-business: no one has the right to use force. Businesses have the chambers of commerce and many various association groups. In terms of computering, given the broad and deep culture of self-employment and entrepreneurship, it would be hard to say where a computer user group is a trade association, a business meeting, or a labor union hiring hall. I think that is a good model. Rand said in particular that informing members of wage rates would be a primary service of unions in a (laissez faire) capitalist economy. She also said that any employer who had an unsafe workplace could be sanctioned legally and financially (fined by law) whether or not anyone actually was injured.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is not true that "In a free market, for example, an employer would be free to fire or replace striking workers." It would depend on the contract. An employer would be wise to specify union membership as a condition of employment. It is better for your lawyers to negotiate with theirs than to have 1000 people hitting on your HR department for new contract every payday. Safety is a big factor. You get the union to make the safety rules and it is their problem, not yours, when people have to wear gear and follow procedures.

    The Chamber of Commerce is just one of many business groups that are "married to the state."
    See my comments on Detroit in the recent topic. The unions were a secondary consequence of the automotive industry, which was a "Brave New World" model of fascism: business, labor, and government working together (ahem).

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by FlukeMan2 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You seem to be focusing on the danger of public unions. What in the abstract makes public unions worse than unions for the private sector?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by EdNowak 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Workers certainly have the right to organize. The problem is that modern unions are essentially married to the state. In a free market, for example, an employer would be free to fire or replace striking workers. Current US law generally prohibits such an action. Also, the majority of current union members in the US work for government entities. The proportion of unionized workers in the private market has been shrinking for decades. As for evidence of the utter irrationality and immorality of the modern union movement, witness the decline of a major American city from the richest in the country to the poorest--Detroit. And the public unions work hard and spend their members money to elect the government officials (nearly all Democrats) with whom they then negotiate pay and benefits, including pension benefits that are impossible in the real world. Witness the bankruptcy of Stockton, CA. Public teachers unions are especially egregious and are largely responsible for preventing significant innovations in public education. Why does anyone doubt that they act purely in their own interest rather than the interest of their charges?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo