[dofm]

The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself.

I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.

[ericmay]

> The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself.

I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).

> I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.

I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?

I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[dofm]

> I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).

No, it is not. Look at the history of the British industrial revolution. Workers rights were secured by union action.

> I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?

Look, the fact that your police forces are run by gangs doesn't mean unions are bad. It just means your culture around unions is broken.

Police in the UK have a union too. It isn't a gang of thugs.

[j16sdiz]

We have gone a long way since industrial revolution.

e.g.

Child labor now outlawed.

There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change)

Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.

[dofm]

> Child labor now outlawed.

For now. Most US states are currently trying to roll back these laws though, aren't they?

[inigyou]

What you described is the result of the government acting as one big, but very conservative, union.

[unknownfuture]

Literally demonstrating the point in dofm's second paragraph right here...

[dofm]

Thank you. Almost all of the US discourse around unions seems to involve accepting the literally cartoonish framing that the US corporate right managed to force into popular culture.

The fact that union culture in the USA is broken is not a problem with unions. It's a problem with the USA.

[TheTaytay]

I think working conditions have changed enough since then to make a request for non-biased studies a reasonable one. Most debates about unions seem to boil down to “I just know” or anecdotes. I would expect unions to fund research to show that working conditions are better in union shops, but not include the fact that some unionized shops can’t compete in a market with non union shops and might go out of business. (But have great working conditions until the last day) And vice-versa for pro industry research. Unions are adversarial, and feel necessary to people that view employment or employers through that lens. It’s possible that we can still credit unions with the status quo, but 1they have nowhere near the adoption of vaccines to make the analogy a good one. I’d rather debate “which employers/industries” need unions than debate whether they are objectively good in all circumstances.

[inigyou]

Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them?

Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share honest financial numbers with their unions.

[mcmcmc]

> Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government).

That’s not at all what a union is. Why else would federal workers need their own unions? The point of a union is collective bargaining power for labor. Federal workers have little to no bargaining power when budgets are set by Congress. Especially when they can’t strike.

[inigyou]

I can't parse this comment in relation to the context.

[mcmcmc]

[delayed]

[senordevnyc]

They’re pointing out that calling the federal government “a big union” is inaccurate, and reasons why.

[j16sdiz]

> Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them?

Playing devil's advocate:

- Having government functionally like one big union make individual union obsolete.

--

[inigyou]

But the government isn't very good at it. The government also represents the owners of the companies, and it did the bare minimum to stop the workers from literally murdering the owners and setting their houses on fire (which used to happen regularly before the government guaranteed worker rights).