Do labor unions effectively mandate social stratification and balkanization?

[anotherneil]

That's the main question.

Labor unions are one of the issues that I find quite challenging to resolve.

On one hand, they've played a role in helping improve things for individuals who choose a life and career in certain fields, vocations, or professions.

It seems to be a solution for dealing with the free-rider problem (FRP).

On the other hand, many of the problems they were originally established to deal with are probably obsolete and won't be coming back, in the contemporary socio-economic and political sense (as opposed to the concept of robots, automation, AI, and other advancements in technology doing all our work and solving all our problems for us, someday).

In the republic that I live in (the USA), the states are split into 2 categories; either they're "right-to-work" (RTW) states, or they're "forced unionization" states.

Labor unions can still exist in RTW states, but then the FRP still exists; this means that labor unions don't achieve part of their purpose in RTW states.

Life is not fair, and part of reality no being fair is that the FRP basically can or does exist, but the FRP doesn't only exist in labor force situations. For example, if someone gets sued for some sort of civil liability issue, and it's very costly and time consuming to them & maybe even ends up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they win their position or stance, then everyone else who is or might've been caught up in the same civil liability issue, who didn't do anything to contribute to the legal expenses, or wasn't affected as bad because of timing issues or what-not, then they're basically also free riders.

In general, life is practically a game of randomly hit-or-miss in many ways, which is what life not being fair is about.

Should we compel everyone in society who's been in one free rider situation or another to pay up?

From a constitutional perspective, I think states that are not RTW are infringing on our constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

 

[Stevicus]

That's the main question.

Labor unions are one of the issues that I find quite challenging to resolve.

On one hand, they've played a role in helping improve things for individuals who choose a life and career in certain fields, vocations, or professions.

It seems to be a solution for dealing with the free-rider problem (FRP).

On the other hand, many of the problems they were originally established to deal with are probably obsolete and won't be coming back, in the contemporary socio-economic and political sense (as opposed to the concept of robots, automation, AI, and other advancements in technology doing all our work and solving all our problems for us, someday).

In the republic that I live in (the USA), the states are split into 2 categories; either they're "right-to-work" (RTW) states, or they're "forced unionization" states.

Labor unions can still exist in RTW states, but then the FRP still exists; this means that labor unions don't achieve part of their purpose in RTW states.

Life is not fair, and part of reality no being fair is that the FRP basically can or does exist, but the FRP doesn't only exist in labor force situations. For example, if someone gets sued for some sort of civil liability issue, and it's very costly and time consuming to them & maybe even ends up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they win their position or stance, then everyone else who is or might've been caught up in the same civil liability issue, who didn't do anything to contribute to the legal expenses, or wasn't affected as bad because of timing issues or what-not, then they're basically also free riders.

In general, life is practically a game of randomly hit-or-miss in many ways, which is what life not being fair is about.

Should we compel everyone in society who's been in one free rider situation or another to pay up?

From a constitutional perspective, I think states that are not RTW are infringing on our constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

I support labor unions as a general principle, although I recognize that there have been problems with corruption and a noticeable disparity between unionized and non-unionized occupations.

I never liked the phrase "right to work," because it's intentionally deceptive. There is no "right to work" guaranteed in the Constitution. If it were, then there would be no unemployment. Every person would be guaranteed a job no matter what.

 

[anotherneil]

I support labor unions as a general principle, although I recognize that there have been problems with corruption and a noticeable disparity between unionized and non-unionized occupations.

Oh, I forgot to mention that aspect in my OP - there's the labor racketeering underground business opportunity that it creates.

I never liked the phrase "right to work," because it's intentionally deceptive. There is no "right to work" guaranteed in the Constitution. If it were, then there would be no unemployment. Every person would be guaranteed a job no matter what.

2 things:

1. Given that the right to work is not in the constitution, as you point out, maybe that's why the states can and do choose to be one or the other. The ones that are "right to work" don't have to do anything, other than to simply not make themselves a forced unionization state; the ones that do make themselves forced unionization have to create laws that specifically impose a ban on the right to work.

2. I think you're taking it out of context; it's not "right to work" as in you get to force an employer to give you a job and pay you & that wouldn't make sense, either, because it's a an economically unsound and logically invalid perspective. The idea is that one has the right to work if they can find a job or someone to hire them, and the government cannot interfere by saying that you're not allowed to have that job, because you do not have a "right to work". In this sense, I think it is covered by the constitution's right to peaceably assemble, which includes assembling to trade or do/have a job.

 

[Yerda]

You could start by comparing the countries with higher unionisation rates, stronger union rights and labour representation in business, law and politics with the countries that have these to lesser degrees.

Does Denmark experience more social stratification and balkanisation than Greece?

Does Sweden experience more social stratification and balkanisation than the US?

Does this indicate something about the thesis in the title?

In my reading, the places with stronger unionisation have more equal societies, higher trust in the fairness of national and civic institutions, and stronger sense of unity than countries where unions are weaker. Given how frequently labour unions have impacted policy at national levels for the benefit of others I'd expect that they don't mandate balkanisation but positively increase community and solidarity.

I would also reject the suggestion that the reason they exist is obsolete. They have always primarily negotiated for better pay and conditions. This will always be necessary while the workers don't control productive capital.

 

[Yerda]

Consider: https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...stage-deal-disrupts-flights-buses-2024-09-02/

or, German strike of January 1918 - Wikipedia

And Unions are not only good for workers, they’re good for communities and for democracy: High unionization levels are associated with positive outcomes across multiple indicators of economic, personal, and democratic well-being

They find that weakening unions (through the enactment of “right-to-work” laws) has significant long-term political and economic effects, such as lower voter turnout, lowered organized labor contributions, less voter mobilization, fewer working-class candidates serving in state legislatures and Congress, and more conservative state policy. These political consequences undoubtedly affect not only the communities in which they take place, but also the broader economy, as the chosen candidates enact economic policies.

Edit: swapped paywalled article for another

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mostly in the Balkan steppe ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, I forgot to mention that aspect in my OP - there's the labor racketeering underground business opportunity that it creates.

Not to mention fodder for stupid petite bourgeois posts. Count me as a Cesar Chavez NFWA supporter.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

On the other hand, many of the problems they were originally established to deal with are probably obsolete and won't be coming back, in the contemporary socio-economic and political sense (as opposed to the concept of robots, automation, AI, and other advancements in technology doing all our work and solving all our problems for us, someday).

I don't know.. I not sure if the concerns of truckers have changed all that much, since trucking started?

For example, if someone gets sued for some sort of civil liability issue, and it's very costly and time consuming to them & maybe even ends up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they win their position or stance, then everyone else who is or might've been caught up in the same civil liability issue, who didn't do anything to contribute to the legal expenses, or wasn't affected as bad because of timing issues or what-not, then they're basically also free riders.

I kinda think that if something's going to the supreme court, then the individual doing that has got a bit of an altruistic tendency in doing that. Whether they are right or wrong about the issue, it seems highly likely that they don't want future people to deal with the issue

In general, life is practically a game of randomly hit-or-miss in many ways, which is what life not being fair is about.

Should we compel everyone in society who's been in one free rider situation or another to pay up?

Well what about problems with multiple origins, or a complicated origin, where it leaks into international zones, namely waste management. The ocean.. border regions between countries.. things that happen in the air.. You're talking about something that could have no real bottom to it, in terms of clearly identifying exactly who pays what

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the main question.

Labor unions are one of the issues that I find quite challenging to resolve.

On one hand, they've played a role in helping improve things for individuals who choose a life and career in certain fields, vocations, or professions.

It seems to be a solution for dealing with the free-rider problem (FRP).

On the other hand, many of the problems they were originally established to deal with are probably obsolete and won't be coming back, in the contemporary socio-economic and political sense (as opposed to the concept of robots, automation, AI, and other advancements in technology doing all our work and solving all our problems for us, someday).

In the republic that I live in (the USA), the states are split into 2 categories; either they're "right-to-work" (RTW) states, or they're "forced unionization" states.

Labor unions can still exist in RTW states, but then the FRP still exists; this means that labor unions don't achieve part of their purpose in RTW states.

Life is not fair, and part of reality no being fair is that the FRP basically can or does exist, but the FRP doesn't only exist in labor force situations. For example, if someone gets sued for some sort of civil liability issue, and it's very costly and time consuming to them & maybe even ends up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they win their position or stance, then everyone else who is or might've been caught up in the same civil liability issue, who didn't do anything to contribute to the legal expenses, or wasn't affected as bad because of timing issues or what-not, then they're basically also free riders.

In general, life is practically a game of randomly hit-or-miss in many ways, which is what life not being fair is about.

Should we compel everyone in society who's been in one free rider situation or another to pay up?

From a constitutional perspective, I think states that are not RTW are infringing on our constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

I can't speak for the US, but over here in Belgium... I kind of hate unions.
While they were hugely important back in the day in their (successful and righteous) fight for worker rights etc... these days I feel like they , more often then not, completely overshoot their purpose.

They are no longer an organization for the purpose of protecting worker rights. They are more in the business of blackmailing employers. And when they don't get their way and have their greedy and / or unreasonable demands met, they organize land crippling strikes which not only prevent the employees of those companies to work, but also prevent employees from plenty of other companies - who have nothing to do with it - to work. They'll block highways, train stations etc, preventing people from getting to work or having them stuck in traffic for hours and hours.

And many times it's completely counter productive as well....


Like last year... there was this company, don't remember which (some factory) which was enduring heavy financial problems. They had to lay off a bunch of workers, like 30% or something. This, just to stay afloat and avoid bankruptcy. And there were the unions off course, protesting heavily. They forced ALL workers to strike. Even those that wanted to go to work, couldn't.

I thought... yeah, sure,... good idea.... laying down the work while expecting / demanding to get paid anyway... that sure will help the company get out of financial problems.......

Not only that, their strike also affected plenty of other businesses due to traffic problems and alike. One day of such strikes costs the economy MILLIONS in productivity loss. What do they think they are going to accomplish by doing such things?
Off course, it also didn't work. The people were fired anyway, because the company had no other choice.

They told them "it's really simple... either we put 30% out of work today, or we put 100% out of work in a month or two. Choose. Also, every day this strike continues, we lose so much money that we'll have to fire an additional 1-2% of workers".

Unions were furious.

I was furious too. But at the unions. Disgusting delusional pricks.

 

[Stevicus]

Oh, I forgot to mention that aspect in my OP - there's the labor racketeering underground business opportunity that it creates.

Yes, that has been a problem. Although one could also see that as a matter of cause and effect. If the companies had been willing to offer a better deal and treat their workers better, the unions would never have had to turn to the Mob for muscle. Blame the companies for employing brutal strikebreakers and thugs. Of course, the downside of that is the unions ended up beholden to the Mob, which not only discredited and weakened the labor unions, but also had the effect of making corporations more powerful.

Nowadays, workers get more protections from the government than they get from unions.

2 things:

1. Given that the right to work is not in the constitution, as you point out, maybe that's why the states can and do choose to be one or the other. The ones that are "right to work" don't have to do anything, other than to simply not make themselves a forced unionization state; the ones that do make themselves forced unionization have to create laws that specifically impose a ban on the right to work.

2. I think you're taking it out of context; it's not "right to work" as in you get to force an employer to give you a job and pay you & that wouldn't make sense, either, because it's a an economically unsound and logically invalid perspective. The idea is that one has the right to work if they can find a job or someone to hire them, and the government cannot interfere by saying that you're not allowed to have that job, because you do not have a "right to work". In this sense, I think it is covered by the constitution's right to peaceably assemble, which includes assembling to trade or do/have a job.

I would still maintain that the phrase "right to work" is deceptive in this context. It's analogous to removing all laws regarding air pollution and industrial emissions and then justifying it by calling it the "right to breathe." They could call it something else, but then again, use of deceptive and/or manipulative language is part and parcel of our political culture.

If the whole idea is about reducing government interference in the private sector, then I would suggest that should apply equally to both management and labor. But it's the owners of these companies which need the interference of government far more than the workers do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's the main question.

Labor unions are one of the issues that I find quite challenging to resolve.

On one hand, they've played a role in helping improve things for individuals who choose a life and career in certain fields, vocations, or professions.

It seems to be a solution for dealing with the free-rider problem (FRP).

On the other hand, many of the problems they were originally established to deal with are probably obsolete and won't be coming back, in the contemporary socio-economic and political sense (as opposed to the concept of robots, automation, AI, and other advancements in technology doing all our work and solving all our problems for us, someday).

In the republic that I live in (the USA), the states are split into 2 categories; either they're "right-to-work" (RTW) states, or they're "forced unionization" states.

Labor unions can still exist in RTW states, but then the FRP still exists; this means that labor unions don't achieve part of their purpose in RTW states.

Life is not fair, and part of reality no being fair is that the FRP basically can or does exist, but the FRP doesn't only exist in labor force situations. For example, if someone gets sued for some sort of civil liability issue, and it's very costly and time consuming to them & maybe even ends up having to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they win their position or stance, then everyone else who is or might've been caught up in the same civil liability issue, who didn't do anything to contribute to the legal expenses, or wasn't affected as bad because of timing issues or what-not, then they're basically also free riders.

In general, life is practically a game of randomly hit-or-miss in many ways, which is what life not being fair is about.

Should we compel everyone in society who's been in one free rider situation or another to pay up?

From a constitutional perspective, I think states that are not RTW are infringing on our constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

For me, the monkey wrench in the works is that Labor Unions get involved in all sorts of politics that have nothing to do with their industry. THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB. I remember back when I was teaching, the California Teachers Association was spending MY UNION DUES on some cockamamy proposition regarding a nuclear power plant. SAY WHAT?

As long as unions insist on spending the dues on projects that are not related to worker salaries and work conditions, I think we have to have RTW. But I scream when I say that, because as you point out, it opens the door to freeloaders who benefit greatly from a union without contributing to it.

I'm ready to see legislation regulating what labor unions can and cannot do.