[ahelwer]

Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor, not by putting a stranglehold on new hiring.

[chrisseaton]

> Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor, not by putting a stranglehold on new hiring.

How do you think they magically achieve this?

Surprise - it's by threatening to restrict supply (not working for the company if they don't agree to the union's terms.)

[ahelwer]

Threatening to strike is much different from restricting the people who can work for the union?

[chrisseaton]

In both cases you could be happy with the offered compensation but be forced to not work for the company anyway.

[r_smart]

Yes, they're different things. They're also the two basic tools in the union toolkit for driving up wages.

[bobthepanda]

You also don’t need a union to put a stranglehold on labor supply.

See: doctors

[r_smart]

I guess you could say it's not a union, but it's pretty much the same thing. At least, it's pulling the same levers to get desired outcomes.

[r_smart]

|Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor

Revenue pie, not profits pie. A union will negotiate better terms for itself if the leadership thinks it's appropriate, regardless of the health of the company.