[scoofy]

If “who is worse” is a relevant metric, the question of unions would not be complex. Again, though, this is an entirely naive view of what is a very complicated reality.

The very obvious reason that corporations are “worse” is simply that they have more leverage. The idea that “leverage is likely to be abused” is a much more thoughtful heuristic for the paradigm.

[bb88]

Your point is noted.

But unions have never existed in a vacuum. And without the context of why they came about, that is from corporations abusing employees, it's easy to say "Unions are complex" when the world in which they exist is far more complex than unions are and perhaps far more vile.

[scoofy]

I'm generally pro-union. Don't think that just because I criticize them that I don't think they're generally a good idea. The problems I'm pointing to are general problems of democracy in general. Incumbents tend to ignore future generations well-beings when it comes to current generations ability to negotiate.

The point I'm trying to respond to is: "This thread is filled with so many anti-union takes that you have to wonder if they are paid bots."

I think there are plenty of reasons why normal folks are anti-union, and generally, it's because different sets of workers are in different positions and have different perspectives.

Generally speaking, if there were some kind of "Workers Bill of Rights" built into organized labor law, preventing these abuses, there would be much stronger support for unions generally.

You want to be a longshoreman? Tough shit, they aren't any jobs for you as a longshoreman... and it is a total coincidence that the extremely high paying gigs for longshoremen tend go to the children of existing longshoremen. Not to mention their effort to shut out technological improvements that are standard in most other countries now.

You want medical costs to go down? Tough shit, the professional organizations for medicine have managed to artificially limit the number of med school students and residencies.

If there were limits on what unions could to stifle competition within their own industries, if there were limits on the extent of job security for poorly performing union members, if there were legitimate rules that meritocracy has to be the rule, not the exception, then I think the vast majority of Americans would start clamoring for more union membership. What we currently see is a lot of good work, but also a lot of fiefdoms being established and locked down.

There are unions that protect workers from firm's abusive practices. There are also unions that protect lamplighters job from the "tyranny" of the electric light bulb, and make everyone poorer in the process.

[bb88]

No argument from me, other than: All those things can be also be said about corporations.

You brought up lamplighters and the electric lightbulb. It's worth noting that corporations had a cartel that prevented lightbulbs from running longer than a few years. And to some extent that still happens.

Big Clive did a good video on the Dubai Lamp a few years back, and why you can't buy them anywhere but in Dubai.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klaJqofCsu4

[_DeadFred_]

Also theft by corporations is one of the largest types of theft in the US.

https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...

[wredcoll]

> The very obvious reason that corporations are “worse” is simply that they have more leverage. The idea that “leverage is likely to be abused” is a much more thoughtful heuristic for the paradigm.

If you enjoy thought terminating clichés, I suppose.

Corporations, in general, have a very different set incentives and ways they can wield power and ways that people outside of their power structures can interact with them.

It's the same issue when people try to claim a corporation having the power to do X is the same as a democratic government having the same power. It's not.

[dash2]

It’s a plausible take that the best government in human history (say Sweden) is worse than the worst corporation. Sweden had an active eugenics program.

[wredcoll]

I fail to see the plausibility. Afterall, the east indies corporation existed.

[dash2]

I don't know much about that case, but isn't it stretching the boundary between "corporation" and "government"?