> 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.

> Not sure why you're trying to be snarky.

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.