|
|
|
|
|
|
by bnjms
2430 days ago
|
|
|
I hate hearing this. I don't even understand how good unions are an inherently anti-conservative thing. I cannot understand why the US would fail to build up countries in its sphere of influence in order to encourage gratitude. A crutch can help you grow and recover or it can hobble you, and everything I've ever heard about our influence in central and south America has suggested we've hobbled them. -- I hope I'm just ignorant and wrong. |
|
|
In particular, that discussion helps us define a "good" union: one that adds value for both the business and the workers it mediates between.
What makes a "bad" union, then? Well, in some industries, organization of labor won't add much value, so there won't be demand for their services. Union leaders will honestly believe they add value (like many organizations that can't acknowledge they're no longer in demand) and will lobby for laws to force unionization against the will of workers and businesses. That will become a bad union; its efforts will center preserving its own existence.
Worse, unions depend on solidarity, so the good unions will have to side with the bad unions if they want to be able to strike effectively.
And then their critics won't percieve any meaningful distinction between good and bad unions.
[1]: https://www.econtalk.org/mitch-weiss-on-the-business-of-broa...