Unions are simply a balancing force to that of the management whose sole purpose is to extract as much profit from the enterprise. Yes, a lot of bad things can happen when unions gain too much power. But that doesn't mean unions are necessarily evil. On the contrary, they are a necessary evil, as a balancing force of the evil of the profit incentive.
The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. In many cases the signal necessary to make a judgement is not propagated to consumers, at least not in such a way that it will cause a change in consumers purchasing decisions. This is where unions are necessary to correct against overbearing and unrealistic management. Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.
> Unions are simply a balancing force to that of the management whose sole purpose is to extract as much profit from the enterprise.
You say "profit" like it's a bad thing. It's not, it's what funds new good things. And, reducing costs is a good thing. It produces "more".
BTW - Management's goal is to extract as much profit for managers, not for the enterprise.
One big problem with the corporate model is that no one has a long term interest. No one at GM ever got fired for agreeing to the contracts that broke the company. Instead, folks did get fired for not giving in.
> Profit is "evil" here because it creates incentives for all sorts of bad things. This is what necessitates a balancing force.
Even if that's true, unions aren't a balancing force to the "incentives for all sorts of bad things". The only role that unions will play here is in trying to get their cut.
Actually, that's wrong. Unions will often actively help commit said "bad things" because they'll benefit. For example, unions are often quite protectionist.
Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good". Everyone always loves to simplify things down to their pet ideology.
> Of course there are many dimensions here. In some dimensions unions are "evil", in some they are "good".
The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit.
Since that evil produces more money for the company, you need an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut.
Unions are not new, so if you're going to suggest that they're useful for doing something, you should have actual examples of them doing said something.
Decreasing the company's profit doesn't necessarily equate to a union taking its "cut" (of the profits). Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment. Here the union is a check against a corporation's motive to sacrifice work environment for profit.
> Think reduced hours, more vacation, sick leave, less hazardous environment.
All of those things are the union (members) taking more of the profit.
"work environment" (as you're using it) isn't some abstract good that the unions are protecting. It's "what do I have to do for the money I make?"
Changing that balance one way is reducing the union members' take. Changing it the other way is increasing the union members' take, that is, trying to reduce a company's profit by increasing the union members' share of the revenue.
We're still waiting for "an example where a union did something to reduce a company's profit other than by trying to increase the union's cut."
Not sure why you're trying to be snarky. I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money. I clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members. If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit", then so be it. Nitpicking on minutia (definition of clearly defined words) is a waste of everyone's time.
>The question isn't whether unions are good or evil, it's whether they're actually a counter to a specific evil that companies might commit.
The specific evil being detrimental work environment, its obvious that unions are a balancing for to that.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm trying to point out that your thinking is muddled.
> I was clear that I meant "profit" in terms of money.
And the things that you listed were benefits received by union members, benefits that cost money, which reduces profit. What do you think the same money for less work is?
> clarified my point by listing the ways unions benefit their members.
No one is suggesting that unions don't benefit their members. Your claim was that unions were combatting some evils. I asked for an example, and you started ranting about profits, so I pointed out that the only effect that unions have on profits is to increase expenses that directly benefit their members.
> If you consider work environment, etc as part of "profit
Work environment is expense. Profit is revenue - expense. Which statement do you disagree with?
Some work environment details affect quality and/or productivity and some don't. Of the former, some provide more increased revenue than their costs while others don't.
Do you really want to argue that unions only ask for work environment and compensation things that "pay for themselves"? (Given your model of management, unions don't have to ask for those things.)
If you've got examples of unions acting other than in their own self-interest, let's see them instead of vague theories.
How can you be so certain that unions act a certain way yet not have any examples?
I honestly have no idea what you're ranting about at this point. It's hard to have a discussion when your bias distorts everything I say.
>Work environment is expense. Profit is revenue - expense. Which statement do you disagree with?
I have no problem with the definition of "profit" you used, I already made this clear. All that matters is that we're on the same page.
>No one is suggesting that unions don't benefit their members. Your claim was that unions were combatting some evils
I clearly defined what "evil" I spoke of that unions are a balancing force against--"overbearing" management. Things like dangerous work environments, extreme work hours, lack of health insurance, etc. It is clear that unions are a balancing force to this "evil". If you disagree with this, then provide an argument. This is the only point I've made. I never claimed that this wasn't in the self-interest of its members. Your points are completely tangential to anything I've said.
> Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.
I'll agree with that, but I think regulation and Big Government™ are a better solution and unions have outlived their usefulness. You can tell because most people who advocate for unions just rest on past glories.
I can agree with your point. Government perhaps is smarter and better equipped to deal with these types of issues than it was in the past when unions were necessary. The follow up question to this is: how did Government become smarter about labor issues? Was it unions that brought these issues to mainstream attention? If we do away unions, who could adequately fill this role? Unions are special because they have direct access to information that is generally lost to anyone outside of the company's walls. Any entity that filled the role of watchdog would need access to this information.
Oh come on. I was hoping it was clear that I was using the word "evil" as generic label for the negative side of any dichotomy. I don't personally believe in actual evil anyways (does anyone?).
I don't personally believe that overreaching management is necessarily bad for consumers. I was just trying to preempt what seemed to be a logical reply given philwelch's previous comments.
As to why the market won't necessarily correct for it, is because many times overreaching management is effective (at least in the short term). Degrade working conditions to cut costs and the consumer benefits. The information about how these lower prices were brought to the consumer is usually lost in the process. That signal simply doesn't reach all interested parties, and thus they aren't able to adjust their behavior in response. Some situations it can work, for example a business where customer service is a large part of the experience. The signal of overreaching management does eventually filter down to the consumer.
Most likely the information doesn't reach the consumer because the typical consumer doesn't care.
There are often niche producers who target the small fraction of consumers who care, and market their wares in part based on this. For example, see Fair Trade coffee producers (appealing to do-gooders) or American Apparel (appealing to US nationalists).
Your claim that markets can't transmit this information to interested consumers seems incorrect.
> That signal simply doesn't reach all interested parties,
Sure it does. I, the customer, see both the price and the service. If I'm willing to pay more for more service, I can do so.
And, this signal also reaches the employees as well. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. If you're right about how valuable your service is, customers will make the same choice. If you're wrong....
What about products that have no aspect of customer service, say canned tuna? The point is that there are classes of products with no meaningful level of customer service to the final consumer. Or, any consideration of service is trumped by lower cost. In both of these cases the market will not correct for overbearing management.
The free market generally does not have the power to correct for overreaching management. In many cases the signal necessary to make a judgement is not propagated to consumers, at least not in such a way that it will cause a change in consumers purchasing decisions. This is where unions are necessary to correct against overbearing and unrealistic management. Society is stronger, and the economy is stronger, when the "wealth" of a nation is well distributed among everyone. Wealth here being everything from health, leisure time, assurances against bodily injury, etc. Unions are but one tool to ensure this equitable distribution.