[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]

This is what I was arguing against:

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

[senordevnyc]

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

[dofm]

> Where would we be without them?

Where will you be without them, you mean. The current trajectory of the US government is the opposite of strengthening the rights of labour.

[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 minimum worker rights.