There is no contradiction between strong unions and a thriving free market.

[jojoju1998]

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Look at the top ten countries folks, all with relatively stronger unions, free universal healthcare, ( and ironically, lower corporate taxes as well ), cheaper education.

They're all ranked higher in terms of economic freedom than the US, which is at 25th place.

[100% pro-choice no matter what]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

[Comrade Luanne Platter]

Emphasis on 'strong unions' as one has to be careful of employer infiltration inside their union and sympathy for the bosses among leadership.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

[TML]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions advocate for workers' wages and working conditions, both of which could reduce the profits of business owners. Conservatives have mostly been bought off by business owners seeking to maximize profits, and one way to do so is to reduce the influence of unions.

[jojoju1998]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions advocate for workers' wages and working conditions, both of which could reduce the profits of business owners. Conservatives have mostly been bought off by business owners seeking to maximize profits, and one way to do so is to reduce the influence of unions.

In most other countries, bargaining is done industry wide rather than company by company.

So companies don’t try to fight back. Everyone’s instantly covered.

[Mercenary]

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Look at the top ten countries folks, all with relatively stronger unions, free universal healthcare, ( and ironically, lower corporate taxes as well ), cheaper education.

They're all ranked higher in terms of economic freedom than the US, which is at 25th place.

Exactly. It makes economic sense to support these things but people are too obsessed with their ideologies to accept things that work better because it is in conflict with the nonsense rhetoric spouted off by the talking heads representing the ideology they believe in.

[lfromnj]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Self regulation doesn't exist where union workers can't be fired or ignored for striking.  Its an unfair scale.

[jojoju1998]

Emphasis on 'strong unions' as one has to be careful of employer infiltration inside their union and sympathy for the bosses among leadership.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

Hot Take : I think American Unions are drastically flawed, and have self contributed to their own demise. What do I mean ?

Well here's an example.

1.Most Countries in Europe ( and around the world )have their unions bargain sectorally. By Industry. Instead of by company. So all companies in one industry would be automatically covered. This is good ! Because it prevents things like Union Bosses, right to work, from occurring. An employer can't " infiltrate " a Union meeting if every other company in the industry's already agreed to the contract.

A worker under Right To work can't " choose " a non union company, because well... everyone's already covered in the Industry.

Most of the time, sectoral bargaining happens between a giant Union and an association of all the companies in a industry. At the National Level. There is no chance of a small company going haywire, because of infiltration, or Union Bosses. Everyone plays a role. Everyone.

https://prospect.org/labor/thinking-sectorally-labor-bargaining/

2. The other part is that Other Countries, their Unions have less things to argue about. Things like Paid Family Leave, Healthcare, Paid sick leave, Vacation are all legislated from the Government. And everyone has to abide by these rules, all companies. There's no wiggle room.

Sure are there strikes ? Yeah. Of course, but Sectoral Bargaining Is the key difference, that makes European Unions more successful.

[Badger]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions advocate for workers' wages and working conditions, both of which could reduce the profits of business owners. Conservatives have mostly been bought off by business owners seeking to maximize profits, and one way to do so is to reduce the influence of unions.

Plus, even in the era of trump the number one factor for any non college educated white person, particularly white males, for not voting Republican is Union membership.

[Vosem]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

[100% pro-choice no matter what]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

So what do you propose? I don't see anything wrong with employees exercising their right to organize.

[Vosem]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

So what do you propose? I don't see anything wrong with employees exercising their right to organize.

I don't either; certainly private-sector unions should remain legal. Often it really is the case that such a union can negotiate a better deal with an employer than would exist otherwise.

My proposal is mostly for people to vote for political movements which are hostile to unions and their influence on government, so that you don't get more expensive goods, less effective representation, and less effective markets. 'Unionism', where every industry is unionized and extracts rents from society as a whole, is a stable equilibrium but a bad one compared to one where most industries are not unionized and goods are generally cheaper.

In one paragraph, my point is that in it's in everybody's interest for them to be in a union, but for nobody else to be. (Similarly, it's convenient for me to litter, but I want public spaces to be clean, so I hope nobody else litters). In these cases society's role is to discourage the anti-social behavior.

[Badger]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

Somehow the whole concept of not raising prices for consumers never crosses a conservative's mind when discussing things like shareholder dividends, stock my backs, etc.

We're up to the typical libertarian, the US would reduce itself to $3 an hour average wage and an economy like say guatemala, with a massive working class mostly in poverty, a small rich elite, and an almost non-existent middle class.

Unions offer a counterweight to the overwhelming power of large corporations and even medium size businesses, and allow the free market to function.

[Vosem]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

Somehow the whole concept of not raising prices for consumers never crosses a conservative's mind when discussing things like shareholder dividends, stock my backs, etc.

No, it doesn't. Keeping prices artificially low causes shortages -- y'know, like the ones they had in command economies when they tried to keep prices low. (Eventually they try to do this to food products, and people starve).

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

big galaxy brain vosem: in this thread, I'll pretend that unions in countries like Sweden and Germany must operate as they do in the US, because I'm too lazy to bother learning about other countries or anything that contradicts my toddler ideology.

[Badger]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

Somehow the whole concept of not raising prices for consumers never crosses a conservative's mind when discussing things like shareholder dividends, stock my backs, etc.

No, it doesn't. Keeping prices artificially low causes shortages -- y'know, like the ones they had in command economies when they tried to keep prices low. (Eventually they try to do this to food products, and people starve).

The more you absolutely conflate a command economy with strong unions, as if in a modern liberal democracy with active unions is a little different than China under Chairman Mao, just further reinforces how ridiculous your worldview is

[TheTide]

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

Unions are good, free markets are the bad thing.

[Badger]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Self regulation doesn't exist where union workers can't be fired or ignored for striking.  Its an unfair scale.

The hell it's not. The individual union members are on the hook for not being able to bring in income for their families. Yes, you might have a limited strike fund, but considering most middle class families are only a couple paychecks away from Sirius economic devastation they are still very very much on the short end of the stick and able to absorb those short-term losses of income far less than even a medium sized company.

[jojoju1998]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

So what do you propose? I don't see anything wrong with employees exercising their right to organize.

I don't either; certainly private-sector unions should remain legal. Often it really is the case that such a union can negotiate a better deal with an employer than would exist otherwise.

My proposal is mostly for people to vote for political movements which are hostile to unions and their influence on government, so that you don't get more expensive goods, less effective representation, and less effective markets. 'Unionism', where every industry is unionized and extracts rents from society as a whole, is a stable equilibrium but a bad one compared to one where most industries are not unionized and goods are generally cheaper.

In one paragraph, my point is that in it's in everybody's interest for them to be in a union, but for nobody else to be. (Similarly, it's convenient for me to litter, but I want public spaces to be clean, so I hope nobody else litters). In these cases society's role is to discourage the anti-social behavior.

“ Unionism “ is not the same as sectoral bargaining, as it is practiced in well… almost every other western country.

[jojoju1998]

I don't understand why Conservatives don't love unions. A strong union could force companies to self-regulate on things like workplace safety and would require less spending on things like unemployment insurance.

Unions in every industry negotiate better deals for their workers than the market as a whole would provide, and these costs are typically passed on to the consumer (or, as in the Michigan case, very often the taxpayer, since people like the ones in this thread are pro-union ideologically). Every individual person would prefer their particular industry to be unionized, but every other industry not to be, since then they could get goods and services at a cheaper price. (Preferring everybody to be unionized, like many left-wing ideas, is just preferring that society shoot itself in the foot). In general, the fair outcome rounds to 'there is lots of political activism that stops unions from becoming very powerful', which is generally what's been happening in the US over the past few decades. (The unfair statist outcome is 'unions all collaborate to take control of the government, and then everybody is much poorer and worse off').

There does not have to be a contradiction between strong unions and a free market, but I think in practice there usually is. Strong unions will tend to weaken the free market, if nothing else by punishing scabs. A free market will tend to weaken unions by forcing them to compete with usually cheaper non-union labor. I think these patterns would be much less of a thing if there weren't cooperation among unions across industries, but in practice pro- (or anti- -- which might be more common in the US) -union activism tends to encourage unions in different industries to work in concert.

Historically, militant unions have been the ones that brought home the structural and long-lasting goods for their members and American workers at large.

The long-lasting goods came from technological progress, not any changes to the way governments or corporations function. These mostly got in the way, if anything.

Somehow the whole concept of not raising prices for consumers never crosses a conservative's mind when discussing things like shareholder dividends, stock my backs, etc.

No, it doesn't. Keeping prices artificially low causes shortages -- y'know, like the ones they had in command economies when they tried to keep prices low. (Eventually they try to do this to food products, and people starve).

The more you absolutely conflate a command economy with strong unions, as if in a modern liberal democracy with active unions is a little different than China under Chairman Mao, just further reinforces how ridiculous your worldview is

Sweden, Germany, Norway, are thriving free market economies according to the very conservative heritage foundation.

Heck, they even have have lower corporate taxes than the US……

[Long Live The King!]

In theory, there isn't, in practice, labour unions will often try to pursue policies that contradict market principles and implement protectionism, such as bailouts and tariffs, or try to pass laws making it extremely hard to fire workers. I'm not against labour unions in a free market economy, but there needs to be an understanding that the unions can't just try to overturn aspects of the free market system that they don't like.

[Bismarck]

I agree up to a point. Unions are beneficial and we do need to move the dial in this nation back towards the workers. However, when unions gain too much power and become an interest group unto themselves, or when they demand things that make the companies uncompetitive in the long term they do more harm than good.

[jojoju1998]

I agree up to a point. Unions are beneficial and we do need to move the dial in this nation back towards the workers. However, when unions gain too much power and become an interest group unto themselves, or when they demand things that make the companies uncompetitive in the long term they do more harm than good.

A lot of the things that Unions hassle about in this country, like Paid sick leave, Paid family leave, workplace conditions, are already handled with the government in most other countries.

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

As a market socialist, I wholeheartedly agree.