This is all good in theory so here is my question: since unions are essentially a power structure at its core what happens when they try to abuse their positions? What is the check/balance or counter to that?
Members can vote against those changes. They can vote in new leadership. Or they can stop paying dues and / or join a different union.
In my last workplace, there were a choice of 3 different unions I could have joined. I picked the one which aligned best with my needs, took part in how it was run, and could have stopped if I thought they weren't acting in my best interests.
No I am asking for a situation when the unions have an agenda of extracting maximum benefits out of the company while actively encouraging its members to put in the absolute bare minimum of effort. This will in a few years time will make the company's products prohibitevly expensive due to the associated cost inflation. As a result of which the company's products are no longer competitive in the free market unless heavily subsidized by tax payer dollars (think UAW and its role in gutting American car mannufacturing. These days except for states in rural US, cars made by American car companies: GM, Ford, Chrysler are mostly considered as jokes all over the world).
I mean the very simple question is: who pays? What protects the shareholders, management and the employees?
I'm not from the USA - so I don't know about that specific case.
But let's take your premise and reword it.
What happens if shareholders have an agenda of extracting maximum benefits out of the company while actively encouraging its demise?
We see that all the time with private equity groups loading up on debt so they can make a huge profit and then letting the company go bust.
What happens if senior managers have an agenda of extracting maximum benefits for minimum effort?
Again, how many CEOs get golden parachutes after wrecking a company?
Who protects the workers in those situations?
You'll find (in some cases) unions do take a long term view. They want to secure long term benefits rather than a short term bump. That's because they're working for people who need a regular pay cheque. So you'll see compromises being made in order to secure longer term employment.
So you have basically decided not to answer the relevant question but to parrot an idiotic left wing garbage narrative.
Okay! in that case, I rest my case that unions can actually be very harmful due to it being a power structure and particularly if they are not subjected to any check and balances.
> So you decided not to answer the relevant question but to parrot and idiotic left wing garbage narrative.
No, he had answered your first question and then you came up with an absurd hypothetical as a rebuttal, so he responded with an extension of your hypothetical which demonstrates its absurdity.
> I rest my case that unions can actually be very harmful due to it being a power structure and particularly if they are not subjected to any check and balances.
Sure, but the topic was if having unions was better than not… anything can be harmful given some abnormal premises, so you’ve made no valid point.
As a side question, is your objective to ‘win’ the argument, or be correct? To me, it sounds like the former.
> As a side question, is your objective to ‘win’ the argument, or be correct? To me, it sounds like the former.
My objective here is to get to the truth - nothing more and nothing less. Unions can be "every bit harmful" since they are a power structure and power corrupts. Unrestrained, unfettered, corrupt unions can do more harm than good. They are not a cure all remedy for all problems a modern "evil" corporation might have [1].
> What protects the shareholders, management, and the employees?
When you say protect these entities, what risk does each of these entities endure by being part of the company?
The employees usually put their entire livelihood with the company, and, at least in the US, an employee is dependent upon the employer for pretty much all sources of income and healthcare.
The managers could be classified into two groups: one who is also beholden to their employer, much like an employee and has little to no agency in their job (low/mid level management), and the other who has an ownership-stake or large compensation which prevents a loss-of-livelihood style coercion from their employer.
Often, the second class of management blends into the shareholder group, and their will dictates the policies and objectives of the company. A rapid change in this group (e.g., through a buyout, key member dying), results in rapid changes to the livelihoods of its employees.
The shareholders risk one thing: capital. While capital is important, and can affect one’s life significantly, the shareholder has no other risk.
Personally, I’d rather protect the employees at the risk of the shareholders.
> No I am asking for a situation when the unions have an agenda of extracting maximum benefits out of the company while actively encouraging its members to put in the absolute bare minimum of effort.
Sure, in this is specific situation a company would fail. Something to note, however, is that the objective of a union is never to stop its members from making money. Doing things which would harm the company into not being competitive would necessarily harm the union’s members.
Two key differences here between a union and the owners of a company doing this (which you scoffed at in your other reply), are:
1) if performed by the owners, the profits from this maximum-extraction would go to the owners, but if performed by the union it would be self-destructive, and
2) the decision to do so would’ve been done by an elected group and never potentially at the whims of an owner (for instance, an activist investor with a desire to strip it down for parts and make more than the purchase price).
> This will in a few years time will make the company's products prohibitevly expensive due to the associated cost inflation.
There is no evidence that this would be the case, because no union has ever acted like your hypothetical union.
> think the UAW and how in gutting American car manufacturing
This isn’t true, and you’ll need to provide some evidence for me to take this claim seriously; it is much more time consuming for me to clear up B.S. than it is for someone to make it up.
> Personally, I’d rather protect the employees at the risk of the shareholders.
Sorry, but thats not how capitalism operates. Modern corporations are created for the benefit of share holders and they operate for only one reason and one reason only i.e. "to maximize" shareholder value [1].
Honestly, you seem to be living in some alternative "la la la la" land where you perceive reality in a very different way or at least want reality to be what you want it to be than what currently it is. I am not quite sure how to argue with people who hold beliefs similar to yours. Please note, we are not arguing here as to what is fair or not (read my response carefully) as per some definition of fairness.
> Sorry, but thats not how capitalism operates. Modern corporations are created for the benefit of share holders and they operate for only one reason and one reason only i.e. "to maximize" shareholder value [1].
Sure, but we should quote Friedman a bit more completely… “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
The key caveats to maximizing shareholder value are that this maximization happens ‘within the rules of the game’ and when the business ‘engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.’ A market’s ‘rules of the game,’ so to speak, are set by the government which has the power to enforce those rules.
Part of those rules include what can and cannot be made into a contract, and, in particular, what types of contracts wouldn’t be enforceable because of coercion. If an employee would lose their house because of a business’s decision (and the business has no objective incentive to warn the employee of this potential), I’d argue that most parts of the employer/employee relationship are coercive. A union can mitigate that somewhat by providing a real cost the business for not negotiating in good faith.
In addition, the ‘rules of the game’ are changed by the government, which itself is affected by large market players.
Outside of that: this is a rather one-sided discussion. I’ve given rather full responses and you’ve provided nothing other than ‘no you’re wrong, here’s a partial quote,’ and ‘what about this ridiculous hypothetical?’ Do you have any rebuttal to what I said, or is the ‘personally, I’d rather protect the employees at the risk of shareholders,’ the extent of what you can argue against?
In my last workplace, there were a choice of 3 different unions I could have joined. I picked the one which aligned best with my needs, took part in how it was run, and could have stopped if I thought they weren't acting in my best interests.