🇳🇱
I have always been a big supporter of #unions but lately I have been second-guessing that and debating with myself if I might actually change my views to be against unions....
My thinking is simple.. I am a huge supporter of anti-trust laws. Essentially I dont think companies should be allowed to create coalitions with the intention of price-fixing the market. This makes sense to me, companies **must** compete or else they can become too powerful.
If i believe in that logic then I should, by similar logic, be against unions. Unions are effectively large groups of people getting together to carry out price-fixing of their labour.
@freemo I think you can look at this from many angles. In my opinion, our institutions should be regulated in a way that optimises for things like improved living standards for the average citizen, average life expectancy, average level of happiness etc.
When companies engage in price fixing, the result will almost invariably be higher prices for the majority of society. This is bad, because it will limit access to goods for the average person.
When individuals collectively agree not to work for less than some amount (you said "price fixing", which I suppose is accurate), the result will hopefully be higher pay for the individuals. This is good, because it improves access to goods for the average person. You might say the price of goods will increase, but prices in a competitive market can't be raised arbitrarily.
Morally if not legally, companies are not people. They don't starve if they can't earn a living, they don't suffer when their kids are hungry etc. There are good reasons for companies to be restricted in ways that individuals are not. I see unions as a mechanism for individuals to collaborate.
> I think you can look at this from many angles. In my opinion, our institutions should be regulated in a way that optimises for things like improved living standards for the average citizen, average life expectancy, average level of happiness etc.
I would mostly agree here. The caveat is that regulating institutions improperly can have the opposite effect. Ergo to achieve that one must be delicate (and usually light-handed) in how that regulation occurs.
> When companies engage in price fixing, the result will almost invariably be higher prices for the majority of society. This is bad, because it will limit access to goods for the average person.
Agreed
> When individuals collectively agree not to work for less than some amount (you said "price fixing", which I suppose is accurate), the result will hopefully be higher pay for the individuals. This is good, because it improves access to goods for the average person. You might say the price of goods will increase, but prices in a competitive market can't be raised arbitrarily.
Strongly disagree. If that were true we would just give everyone infinite free money and everything would be great. In reality it doesnt work that way. when workers are providing **value** and being paid specifically for that value, and at a fair price, then and only then, is it good. Realized value makes everyone more wealthy, but free money that doesnt represent value does not.
Now what does need to happen to be good for everyone is to increase the value of a worker, ergo let that worker be paid more as they are of higher value, and then the extra money will be a boon to society for sure.
> Morally if not legally, companies are not people. They don't starve if they can't earn a living, they don't suffer when their kids are hungry etc. There are good reasons for companies to be restricted in ways that individuals are not. I see unions as a mechanism for individuals to collaborate.
I am totally fine with the restrictions we put on companies. Which is why i continue to support anti-trust laws. But regardless we must recognize they have less power than the people, intentionally so, and thats fine in its natural state (without unions).
@freemo I don't think it's controversial to say that you've appealed at an extreme by suggesting workers might expect infinite money. If anything close to that were true then companies would regularly fail after negotiating with unions. Anecdotally, that doesn't seem to happen very often, and this article in time[1] quotes a study[2] of nearly 30,000 US companies that “**Unions likely do not affect businesses by making them more susceptible to failure or re-location, despite the fears of many employers and employees.**” In reality, it seems unions negotiate with the knowledge that demanding too much would not be in anybody's interest.
I think where we will differ is your suggestion that a workers pay is directly correlated to their value, or perhaps what that really means. If a workers value is how much money they generate and this were true, then we would see pay rise with profits. I suppose that vested interests on both sides will make finding reliable evidence difficult, but this paper[3] suggests that large companies with high profits do not necessarily pay workers more. This also seems to agree with my own experiences; especially for low-pay jobs (although there will always be exceptions.) It could then be argued, that some employers are paying their employees less than they are really worth.
I found this point in that time article very interesting: "The only time that the bottom tenth of the population and the top tenth of the population have come closer together has been during those years, when unions were operating in the largest corporations in this country,” If unionisation reduces income inequality on average, then it seems reasonable to conclude that it will also drive improvement in the metrics I mentioned earlier. Certainly, the effects of extreme income inequality are well documented [4].
[1] https://time.com/6168898/why-companies-fight-unions/
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf
[3] http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2008.33660403
[4] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986