richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
My understanding against unionism from those who advocate free markets today, and genuinely do this (not pro-business) is that unions have a monopolistic position in negotiating that ends up forcing people to not pick other options for them to personally negotiate. The argument is that unions should be able to compete for people to sign up for them, just like anything else, and workers should have a right to pick more than one union to represent them. It isn't they can't organize, it is that they should be free to, and that the competition unions face, would cause them to improve. And they do need to improve. Those who are pro-business (different that pro-free markets) is that they don't like to have to honor contracts and want to maximize flexibility in who they hire and fire, and be able to drive down wages, and pay as they see fit, to maximize profits. They don't want the workers to have say in anything that goes on in the business, but have them as replacable cogs. The pro-business folks would end up going to the government to pass laws against individuals organizing to form unions, and against collective bargaining. Such pro-business folks will also end up getting support from the government in the form of subsidies, and also work the government oppose legistlation that would regulate their ability to merge.
|
It's not really a reasonable suggestion though.
If you allow multiple unions in one plant all that will happen is that one guy will form a "Lowest denomination" Union, charge whatever the minium union due is and just piggybank on what the most successful union would do.
Management would allow this because people would join the lowest denomination union... with next to no wages, indirectly hurting the other unions and overall lowering bargaining power.
More often then not you'd actually find the unions "racing to the bottom."
Which in general is the problem with union representation in general. It's hard to craft laws that don't screw somebody.
EDIT:
I mean, i guess you could mandate that all union dues are the same. Then the different unions would switch contracts based on the ideals that best suits each group. (IE one union cares about a dental plan, another group doesn't want the dental plan they want better hours or a better healthcare plan.)
The question is... how do you decide what the dues are? Also how do you handle contract negotiations. I mean theoretically you'd have to lock peopel into the contracts of the union they were in at the time they negotiated? Then have them switch unions between times for renogotiating I suppose.
I'm not sure this would really improve unions. Though at least it would give employees more options.
|
So, it all comes back then to the idea of whether or not free markets are the answer to everything, or they are not?
I thought maybe unions could actually do things of value for people, besides just collectively bargain. Make it so the dues are worth it that are paid.
|
If free markets were the answer to EVERYTHING government wouldn't exist in the first place.
The Free Market is the most effective economic system and works the best logically.
We however handicap this system intentionally to provide benefits for people (or at least try to) and stop situations which we deem distasteful from an emotional perspective.
That's why even the staunchest free market economists usually talk of things like negative income taxes and why some wanted government healthcare.
It's like Eugenics.
It's horrifying to even consider sterlyzing people because they carried a recessive genetic disease gene and I'd consider such a thing a huge human rights violation.
If we were vulcans though, said people would probably line up for it... because logically it really wouldn't hurt the gene pool and it would prevent genetic diseases.
