alt Hacker NewsUnions are great and all, but they cannot solve all problems purely by maximizing their demands. If the resulting business (with the unions and the costs of satisfying them) is no longer able to offer a compelling marketplace offering then all the unions accomplish is destroy their own jobs. This is actually nuanced (meaning there is probably an ideal balance where both parties can enjoy benefits, but too far in either direction is either toxic to the workers or kills the business) but unfortunately the discussion is generally conducted with this kind of flippant emotional appeal. I think that’s why unions are in massive decline. A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation. A lose-lose for workers.
Replies
>A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation.
Do you have a source for any of this beyond "a corporate spokesmouth said so"?
A key thing to understand about unions is that they're a lot of effort to set up and manage, and the time spent on it is in addition to your normal work hours. They don't just spring up out of nowhere.
If you're looking at a union there's a specific reason it formed, and probably a specific person in management behind that reason.
> A lose-lose for workers.
There's an ancient saying in labor: "the only thing worse than a union is no union."