[pas]

Labor should try to change regulation/policy to better help people live while trying to find a new job and/or simply unemployed. Forcing companies to employ someone they don't want is not a winning strategy on the long term. (Though worrying about poor poor companies is a bit premature considering how abysmal worker protections are in the US.)

[netcan]

Ultimately unions are representing an interest group, somewhat separate from the company and itself.

...it arguably make sense to go for job security. Security is valuable... to their members. If it's also popular with members, why not put it on the table? Even if it does hurt long term profits/success, profits are the primary interest of the other party to the negotiation... the firm/employer/shareholder interest. If the firm value (to take the other extreme) employment with n demand then they can negotiate for that, and compromise elsewhere.

The real reason (imo) that infirable employees, unsustainable pensions and other "union problems" happen is specifically because short term takes precedent in a negotiation. Looking 15 years ahead is the privelage of someone who isn't making hard compromises today.

Pension and job security promises are cheap now, expensive later.

[koheripbal]

Programmers need job security? That does not seem to correlate with reality.

[gaogao]

That's just not effective. You don't really have the same leverage when unemployed or looking for a new job.