If you seriously think that using a couple of the worst offenders in Unions is a good argument for abandoning unionized labor, you're more ignorant than you have any clue. You could easily use the same kinds of arguments for why we should abandon corporations, governments, or really anything at all.
When you look at the majority of Unions- and yes, even those in California- they are one of the few things holding the economy up. As much as I'm one of those who wants to push science, evolution, and transhumanism to it's limit, when it comes down to it, a distributed economy beats a top-heavy economy every time, no matter what. Every example of economies with this large a difference in income disparity ends in disaster- literally every example we've ever had. There are no examples of where it was a good thing.
The common sentiment of futurists is 'a little pain to get us to utopia', but the problem is, that pain can kill us very quickly. Without unionized labor, you immediately and wholeheartedly condemn millions to poverty. Furthermore, you're simultaneously abolishing free speech- for what's the use of free speech, if no one can hear you?
My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards.
But as long as there are people working 16 hour days in 110 degree weather for $20 an hour in Central California, WITH the help of a union? You're never going to have a good argument that unions aren't a powerful force for good. You're just ignoring the other side.
>My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards.
I disagree. The problems with unions is that they don't have to compete. If hiring a union worker were an option, then yes, they'd be competing. But that's not how it works. It's hire them or be fined. Period. That's how it works. Being forced to hire a local guy at $40 an hour just because I'm in their jurisdiction is strictly anti-competitive. The world isn't huge anymore. Forcing to hire local makes no sense when there are better people (ahem me! ahem) suited for the work.
Not every Union is written into the law in the area. In fact, the vast majority(I'd estimate well over 80%) of Unions aren't even related to Government in the first place. Grocer's Unions, Retail Unions, Laborer Unions, Operating Engineer Unions, Metalworker, factory worker, etc etc etc. It's a fallacy that Unions don't have to compete. But I'd agree, that in the places that they don't? They're most likely overstepping and perhaps even causing issues.
First of all: If you are going to resort to ad-hominem attacks you are not going to get very far. I resent you characterizing me as "ignorant" and clue-less. It is uncalled for and without justification. You don't know anything about me.
I was not going to comment beyond that until I saw this:
"Unions- and yes, even those in California- they are one of the few things holding the economy up"
Really? How so? I think this is, again, utter nonsense. How are unions holding-up the US economy? You are joking, right?
You really should learn what an ad hominem attack is. If I say you're ignorant and clueless on the topics of labor in economies, based upon what you've said about labor in economies, that's not ad-hominem. That's just resorting to insulting you. However, I shouldn't have done it in the first place, and for that I apologize.
Currently, America has an estimated 11.4% of it's workers in a Union. These are people who universally are working jobs where they are getting better benefits/pay/work conditions than if there were not a Union. Now, considering that the majority of Union jobs are for positions not requiring college degrees, you're looking at a situation of helping the most vulnerable members of society still afford to live on a year to year basis- those who are least valuable to the economic system. To take away Unions, in the vast majority of cases, would cause a few basic results-
* Lowering of hourly pay
* Removal of benefits
* Worsening of work conditions
Now, I could take the reasonable argument that the first and third options would probably stay static in over half of the cases if Unions were to be removed. But without a Union, I don't think that suddenly these companies are going to decide to pick up paying for benefits. While some companies involved with unions pay for their employees' benefits, once again, the majority are given benefits by the union, including health and life insurance at the least, and many include more than that. So you're looking at the very least, with more people unable to afford healthcare.
In the end, yes, the members of the union don't pay out that money to dues- but this won't be enough to afford the benefits they have otherwise. And that means they won't be able to afford many of the other things in their lives, such as houses, cars, or most luxury items. You could make the argument, 'Their job isn't worth that much, they shouldn't be able to do that.', but remember- Unions are largely made up of those who couldn't afford to go back to college in the first place. Less and less young people are joining Unions because most of the newer, more modern industries don't have them. Essentially, unless you're going into government work or healthcare, you'll most likely be outside of the union system.
And this is all avoiding the basic point, that once again- there are a lot of jobs out there right now, that would be wholeheartedly unsafe without a Union pushing back at the employer. And not just unsafe because of simple things like railings, or dangerous locations- but things like overworking employees, dangerous weather conditions, etc. And many companies, even those under Unions, are still able to keep many of these conditions on their employees because the Union is either too new or just doesn't have enough leverage.
When you look at the majority of Unions- and yes, even those in California- they are one of the few things holding the economy up. As much as I'm one of those who wants to push science, evolution, and transhumanism to it's limit, when it comes down to it, a distributed economy beats a top-heavy economy every time, no matter what. Every example of economies with this large a difference in income disparity ends in disaster- literally every example we've ever had. There are no examples of where it was a good thing.
The common sentiment of futurists is 'a little pain to get us to utopia', but the problem is, that pain can kill us very quickly. Without unionized labor, you immediately and wholeheartedly condemn millions to poverty. Furthermore, you're simultaneously abolishing free speech- for what's the use of free speech, if no one can hear you?
My biggest issue with the anti-union crowd is that they don't realize that Unions are just another competing force, except instead of competing in the marketplace, they're competing in the production line. Why do you think our golden example, Silicon Valley, has managed to stay away from unions? It's because of treating their workers pretty damn well, by anyone's standards.
But as long as there are people working 16 hour days in 110 degree weather for $20 an hour in Central California, WITH the help of a union? You're never going to have a good argument that unions aren't a powerful force for good. You're just ignoring the other side.