You object to unions merely because so many segments of them have fallen into crookedness? picky picky picky.
Actually, no. My objections are much more organic. I consider crookedness the most benign of the problems with unions.
labor has a right to organize against the expanding power of employers
Your choice of language here is interesting. By "labor" do you mean employees or unions? My interest is in the treatment of employees. Unions sprang up to protect employees from bosses. They were a means to an end. Over time, IMO, unions have become corrupt in not just the crookedness sense of the word but in that they have been diverted in purpose to serve themselves as an entity, too often at the expense of the employees they were created to represent.
There has been a build-up of law and practice around unions over the years to the extent that they've become the third leg of the stool. You have management, unions and employees, all with different but overlapping interests. The problem is that, in negotiations, only management and unions get a seat at the table. Employees have no legal rights in this equation. Employees want to talk to management about various issues but can't because, by law, they can only do that through their unions. I think that stinks.
E, I really can't find much energy for this discussion. X's response to your post was the first time I recall anyone speaking up for unions on SI. Maybe it's because we're all owners here. Maybe it's because it's more fun to talk about Clinton's peccadillos. Maybe it's because, as you say, unions are out of style right now. I have no personal interest in it, or at least in a few weeks I won't. When you first asked the question, the old war horse in me heard the bugle, but lunch has mellowed me.
I think there may be still a place for unions to represent common laborers but their representation of knowledge workers needs to be largely dismantled in favor of the market place with an assist from the government.
For now at least.
Karen |
