Unions cause unemployment, and socialize the cost of said unemployment

Unions only exist because of special treatment (cronyism) by the government.

Unions hurt all non-unionized and the unemployed.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Hznlp-DwgSw?t=279
youtu.be/9h9W4c2YLCg?t=90
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Unions only exist because of special treatment (cronyism) by the government
Or because we'd all still be dying at thirty from the respiratory illness due to years of working in the sweatshop/mine etc.

Even look at countries with strong unions vs weak unions today and the working conditions of their middle class (i.e. Denmark v US)

You're right.

Prepare for an autistic landslide, tho.

That is not true, you need government to break up unions for the most part. If you look at the early 1900s, it was government troops that broke up unions and strikes.

Unions are useful and a positive influence in some types of jobs, especially dangerous ones, but they are worthless and exploitative in others. For example, government employees should not be unionized.

Got to be my 100th anti-union thread. I will bread through with repetition. Making the top of /pol these days too.

While I understand that Sup Forums would be pro-union (because of current anti-white propaganda), I hardly understand how so many union workers seem to browse /pol.

Unions have served their cause and should of ceased to exist when labor rights were introduced.

You dont need to be paid $35/hr to scratch your nuts and dig a hole.

unionist here, I'l bite

unions causing unemployment is the oldest slur in the book
either there are enough work, or there isn't
workers being unionized or not has no effect on this
it's just another manifestation of the "unions make business uncompetative" argument

unions exist because workers made them
they survive because workers need them to counter-balance the tremendous social and economic force employers have

unions principal goal is to protect the living wage
many employers would pay people so little they couldn't afford to eat, educate their children, afford healthcare etc

and typically the buisiness class would justify this by saying
"without us you wouldn't have a job at all"
"if you don't work for nothing the business will go bust"
they repeat this ad nauseum simply because every time they say it a dollar gets dropped into their pocket

The socialists actually believe this.

Union is gibs

Youre disgusting.

...

>either there are enough work, or there isn't
Higher wages means high prices- which decreases demand AND THUS DECREASES WORK.

when laws started protecting workers the unions were needed less

unfortunately as soon as unions weakened employers simply started flouting laws, illegally underpaying, discriminating based on gender/ethnicity/etc

without the unions an employer bribes an official, and the laws that were so well written are simply ignored

>unions exist because workers made them
No powerful union exists without government help. Which is cronyism. But I guess that is fine for some but not others?

Unions, like governments and corporations, are not inherently good or bad. Anyone who believes otherwise is an ideologically impaired dipshit.

>unions principal goal is to protect the living wage
Funny how all these "living wage" people never seem to die. SAD!

>they repeat this ad nauseum simply because every time they say it a dollar gets dropped into their pocket
So pro-union people think that businesses make too much- but said pro-union people don't go make businesses themselves?...

I understand carpenter, auto unions and such but what I don't get is public employee (government) unions. Then people say they need representation also but then some government employees aren't allowed to be in unions. Where I live they call them exempt and non exempt. Then it just turns into a big liberal money source.

Unions are necessary to keep Labor from being atomized, especially by foreign hordes (before Unions got cucked. )

Also, collective bargaining does not necessitate a State.

Contractual agreements with employers also do not necessitate a State.

Just because the current unions are fucked, doesn't mean that the idea of unions has failed.

Correlation is not causation.

>middle class incomes shrink
>share of aggregate income

why does the title make a claim about something the actual graph doesnt measure? is it because the point is, in fact, a load of shit?

Look man I'm not here for serious ideas and deep thought. Please take that some place else

This, private sector unions are fantastic

>An American is saying this
Don't you have huge strike right now because the fast food giants won't allow a union to form?

I don't believe anything everything I said was fact. Working people are better off in Denmark than in the US and business owners didn't just start providing better working conditions out of the goodness of their heart

>Got to be my 100th anti-union thread
Truly a useful idiot

>without the unions an employer bribes an official
Unions only exist by cronyism.

only fields unions can maybe be justified in are those with potentially dangerous working conditions

teachers unions, sag, etc do way more harm than good

Unions are bad when supported by government.

My union (who just signed a new contract last year for 3 year duration).

is now changing the contract, on the fly, they validated the changes because of non union companies working for less than us (even though these non union companies dont have the manpower for projects let alone maintenance)

There is ZERO overtime anymore, going against provincial law.

The industry is also bossing them around, but apparently my union has no backbone.


pretty sure this is against every fucking labour / contract law out there

wat do

Reminder that you can't just have ppl not join.
It's way too good of a deal to pass on.
>t. Applying right now for dem moneyz

>Also, collective bargaining does not necessitate a State.
The government requiring workers to be unionized does benefit the state by buying votes from said workers.

Corelation != Causation

Not inherently. Especially in the 20th century, they were vital in increasing living standards and quality of life for the working people. IMHO the issue with unions now is that they are more common in the public sector than in the private sector, and the internal structures of unions are becoming breeding grounds for corruption.

>Don't you have huge strike right now because the fast food giants won't allow a union to form?
Fast Food people don't unionize because the government does not require them to- because the government already has the votes of most fast food workers (because they're poor).

Capitalists actually deny this.

...

>he thinks harping against unions is special
Wew lad

dont even have to go there, the graph itself is deceptive and therefore meaningless.

>going against provincial law
Unions are made by government. Thus, you're expecting the government to go against something that they created.

And regarding private companies not having enough workers- unemployed union workers are liable to join the ranks of the private sector.

Unions are a totally legitimate way to protect the rights of workers and help those who cannot negotiate effectively for themselves. The issues we face today are the result of government intervention alongside union negotiation.

> The issues we face today are the result of government intervention alongside union negotiation.

No union (with any power) exists without government help.

Well where I am, the provincial law states that overtime is 1.5x (anything over 8 hours a day or 44 hours a week)

this new union agreement says overtime is 1.0, nothing above that (so no overtime)

To my understanding the provincial law is the bare minimum it can be

so wtf

You coup the spineless leadership and make unions socialist again. Socialist union activism is how workers and the people in general won rights.

Warning: you may literally get lynched.

Organize a strike.

this is something many people actually believe, but it's one part economic reductionism and one part wishful thinking
the truth doesn't have as much political traction simply because it's more complicated

higher wages mean higher prices, this is true
but money doesn't vanish from the system
I have seen this in microcosm in very small communities

the first point I would make is that profitability and prices are not necessarily related
if wages for check out workers increase, the boss of the supermarket can choose to accept a loss of profitability, or pass those prices onto consumers

high prices doesn't reduce demand as a rule; price and demand are two entirely separate measures
the easiest example of this is food; when the price of food rises the demand for food does not fall

the third point is that workers ARE consumers, never forget that
if you underpay a worker, they don't buy your products
if everyone underpays workers, nobody buys your products

ultimately higher wages mean
higher prices on essential goods; but proportionally more people able to afford them leading to a reduction in poverty

higher demand for low end non-essencials (clothes, housewares), less demand for luxury goods
this directly feeds mass production, allowing more regions to compete with imports

businesses at risk of undercutting by corrupt domestic or underpayed foreign markets
this usually requires trade protectionism, but becomes a downside over time

This.

Right to work is using the government to end the ability for unions to form contractual relationships with employers. I don't like the cuck unions having this much power, but once the White man takes the unions back, then RTW should be also smashed.
>What are confounding variables

Median incomes have increased, costs of living for food, textiles, and medicine have decreased, and standards of living through technology and innovation have increased.

The decreasing "middle-class share of income", increasing wealth inequality, decreasing union membership, and stagnation or regression in the lower 3 income quintiles in terms of economic mobility happened for the same reason the "good" things I listed above happened:

>Globalization
I do think our cronyist FTAs need auditing though
>Automation
I do think some of the fruits of automation should be reinvested into the public, though, just like payroll taxes used to.
>Mass immigration
I do think this should fucking end and not be reinstituted until welfare magnets and birthright citizenship are removed and NSEERS and E-Verify expanded and enforced, though.

This. The AFLCIO and the Chamber of Commerce are in agreement on mass immigration, and we know something is wrong. The idea of unions =/= unions in practice.

FUCKING THIS.

Public unions= forcibly extract funds from taxpayer, effectively rent-seeking.

I understand if you work for the government, and want a bulwark against mistreatment, but considering most of those jobs are cushier than private sector ones, they better stop conflating their issues with those of their private sector counterparts.

When a Public Sector union asks for higher pay, it comes from the taxpayer without their office or agency being threatened.

When the union that organized labor under Hostess asked for higher pay, they had to do so under the constraint that the company had to remain fiscally viable to continue operations.

unions have their value
i mean for teachers a union protects you if you try to actually take control of your classroom, but it also lets real piece of shit teachers keep their job

That got shutdown.

We voted NO 95% for the new agreement
went to second vote, same thing

there was NO third vote, NO strike vote

they simply accepted the deal ignoring us

Overtime does not apply to every industry. And if you demand overtime, your base hourly pay will fall. And if this does not fall, then employment will rise.

Unions don't have the ability to force consumers to pay more- they can only pay more by decreasing employment (causing unemployment).

>thinking the politically connected union leadership of today aren't the same porkies
Kill them.

>make unions socialist again.
When were unions not socialist?

You'll never be able to increase your pay without government legislating against private workers. And if this does not happen, then your newest workers will be unemployed.

After socialists got killed and forced to sign affidavits swearing they weren't socialist.

youtu.be/Hznlp-DwgSw?t=279

>government requiring workers to be unionized

I don't support this, incidentally.

On the one hand, things like labor safety have been improving and child labor have been declining throughout the non-union industries and the guilded age, not through unions, but through better conditions at large through industrialization and technological innovation.

Unions did work to smooth over the processes, speed them up in industries that didn't get the message, and end things like company stores.

It's not as simple as one or the other.

This.
>Ignoring the global share of productive capacities of other, competitor nations, increasing

>Ignoring median income for the same time period

>Ignoring COL and QOL

Unions are the nearly the definition of socialism. Your arguments are laughable.

Guess this is why unions dislike hiring learned workers- they would realize that they are commies who believe that they're anti-cronyism.

why don't we just nationalize all of thr unions and make every person automatically a part of every union which they qualify to be a part of. if that person is ever unemployed we can set up the following system, through public works and private coordination with the nationalized unions we can set it up so that if a person is not employed for a number of days they will be forced at the risk of prison/flogging to do any work that the government wants or that the unions have negotiated to be done for private buisness interests. this will result in the ending of unemployment and good wages and worker rights. (this is assuming a state where all forms of government welfare and healthcare have been eliminated) enjoy your rich, large and mighty middle class, your mighty upper class and your extremely vestigal lower class.

I dont really care about a wage increase but when you take away double time or even time and a half its a huge blow to the wages

>capitalists can't read the writing on the wall and actually start playing nice with the workers
I'm sure they did it out of the goodness of their hearts.

>>government requiring workers to be unionized
>I don't support this, incidentally.

This is all that I care about- I don't give a single fuck about unions that function without government help.

>No powerful union exists without government help.
that's a pretty big one

often a union has it's own associated political movement; thus one almost IS the other
that's not cronyism, that's public support

cronyism is unfairly advantaging your friends, supporting people with the same philosophy as yourself is not cronyism
cronyism would be saying "lets put my unionist friend as a minister for medicine, because he's my friend"

there is always a clash between unionized and non-unionised workers, workers of different unions, and unions of different industries
but ultimately the aim so not for one to hurt another, the aim of the union movement is for everyone to be in the union and get the same benefits; not for a small bloc to exploit others

>leaf
hello paid jewish shill.

unions hurting your shekel profits?

Unions increase the price / unit- thus unionizing all of america would decrease our quality of living.

>Corporation: "Work for us for pennies and be glad you have a job"
>Union: "Fuck off, we won't work for less than a fair amount of money and safe working conditions"

Seriously mate, unions protect the working conditions and the wage of people in the working class. Else big corporations would pay less than pennies to maximise their profits.

That shit has happened before, during the Industrial Revolution. Majority of workers in the US earning 20-40% less than a decent living wage, working 10-12 hours a day in terrible conditions. Not to mention child labour in even worse conditions.

Unions defend the rights of workers. A union can bring much greater legal power, to pressure a corporation, than an individual. Unless you advocate for big and small companies alike to be able to exploit the workers, you should be defending the existence of unions.

Unions protect the working man

Do you know what work is? Probably never done a day of it in your life.

youtu.be/9h9W4c2YLCg?t=90

It sounds a little like your only remaining option is to turn down any overtime. It sucks, but if enough of your Union membership does it then maybe it'll have an effect.

Sure, public support and cronyism are alike- and public support shares cronyism's ability to socialize cost (unions increase unemployment without shouldering this burden).

I literally have no choice in being part of a union. 1.2% of my paycheck goes towards the fucking union in my state and there is nothing I can do about it.

All overtime is optional, however they would simply find someone else for that job.

Recession and all

>but ultimately the aim so not for one to hurt another, the aim of the union movement is for everyone to be in the union and get the same benefits

It does not matter what the union's "aim" is. Stalin "aimed" to increase the poor's standard of living.

The fact is that unions increase wages, which increase prices, which decreases work done, which increases unemployment WHICH is shouldered by the tax payer (mostly non-union). The socialization of cost, by unions in this way, is where it passes from public support to cronyism.

I just want what is best for the worker.

disagreed for one simple reason, if you nationalize all unions the state can decide to what party it gives bias to. see how collective bargaining works in switzerland, the result is pro-buisness pro-growth collective bargaining which gives us a rich country with rich people in every class and very low poverty

Corporativism/national-syndicalism is the future.

But they're demanding that they be free of retaliation from management its got nothing to do with government

I reiterate

Part of improving conditions was things like innovation- increasing automation in textile mills, use of more efficient equipment for mining and extraction, tractors for agriculture etc. removing the need for as much of a human element and making human safety less vulnerable.

Part of improving conditions was Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and just plain pissed off workers threatening employers.

We're on the same page, then.

Found the kike.
Yes, technically speaking, an increase in labor costs means and increase in COGS and thus price.

Practically speaking, the consumer will always find a way to get goods and services for a price they agree upon, and unions will be constrained by the employers having to remain profitable, and thus know they can't ask for the fucking moon.
> happened before, during the Industrial Revolution. Majority of workers in the US earning 20-40% less than a decent living wage, working 10-12 hours a day in terrible conditions. Not to mention child labour in even worse conditions.

Stop with this meme, it's one side of the story. Automation and innovation probably did more to improve worker conditions and decrease child labor than Unions did.

Labor unions are pathetic institutions.
The only reason we have them is for collective bargaining which makes a simple for-hire job turn in to a mammoth of demands, conditions, wages, pensions, breaks and general red tape.

IMO, capitalism is as bad as socialism.
Replace it with distributism, end labor unions and instead form guilds.

Sorry bro, I think you're fucked. I'm sure things will turn around soon what with our most excellent management.

>Seriously mate, unions protect the working conditions and the wage of people in the working class.
Unions cause unemployment by increasing costs. Which is the opposite of what a free market does.

>It sounds a little like your only remaining option is to turn down any overtime.
Another example of unions decreasing work done.

what is the advantage of distributionism over fascist Corporatism?

>Stalin "aimed" to increase the poor's standard of living.
>doubled life expectancy
>500% rise in wages
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am not railing against those who are forced to be unionized- only against those who fight to disallow non- union workers. I am anti-crony (those who fight for unions).

Except the Federal Government already does all of that, and there are lawyers who will only take a case if it has a chance of winning based on the evidence, and will only take client fees if they win.

Public Unions are utter and complete trash, and shouldn't exist. Private Unions have SOME legitimacy, but they're largely unneeded anymore.

Higher wages and life expectancy FOR THOSE WHO SURVIVED. Which is similar to unions. Better wages for those who remain employed...sad how you don't see the parallels, and instead unironically cheer for Stalin.

>No way this can go wrong
The bottom right should read
>You don't want to let me fuck you? Then starve on the streets then, and no one else will hire you because there was a 10 year non-compete clause in the bottom of your labor contract

Also, how would mass amounts of capital be privately raised under Distributism?

Also, if an entire industry is put under one guild, what would stop people from forming a different guild once the original one is seen as corrupt/mismanaged, and this devolving more-or-less to the current system of competing unions?

How do you explain unionized power workers? The need for energy will always, ALWAYS be in demand the work will never decrease. Your theory already shot to hell.

The means of production are handled at a local level, rather then the globalization of capitalism.
This is compatible with nationalism, limited government, family and community values.

In truth though, we need fascist corporatism first (strong executive control) to get rid of the Jews, Masons, Bilderberg/Trilateral/Bohemian Grove types etc. and then, and if, we win, distributism can finally be enacted.

>fascist Corporatism
>right to strike abolished
>wages reduced
>1%'s wealth increased

Dude, it's a leaf. The theory was shot to hell before it even took off.

>tfw my union got me good wages, a 90 minute lunch break, enforced breaks, and job protection

>tfw a cushy university job in a major city

I'll take, "Shareholders" for a Thousand, Alex!

Electricity consumption decreases/increases according to price.

I don't understand how someone can be so fiercly in favor of unions while blind to the above.

what exactly is wrong with corporativism/natioanl-syndicalism according to you then? can you find any place where wages greatly decreased from it? where it caused a lowering of the quality of life for the majority? where economic growth was ever harmed by it?


history shows us that corporativism is largely beneficial. i personally believe that you cannot find a better system than a mixture corporativism and positive non-interventionism as this combination has the greatest results historically.

Automation during the Industrial Revolution actually led to huge fucking unemployment. People need to work to make money, so somebody should protect them from the fuckers that would pay them pennies.

>It's one side of the story

Of course it is. I am not saying that unions were the only cause. But they sure as fuck helped the situation. Unions are protecting the worker.

Unions can help pass laws that benefit workers, Unions can sue, or pressure a business into improving the working conditions, Unions can help raise the wage for the average Joe working in construction. Workers have rights and Unions are there to help the government enforce them.

Why are we arguing whether the idea of a group of people getting together to demand some rights from their employer is bad? Do you actually believe that corporations should pay whatever they want, and have the workers work in whatever conditions?

>I'll take, "Shareholders" for a Thousand, Alex!
Holy shit, I've been saying this forever...How has it taken THIS LONG for me to see someone else say this.

There are right to work states where your not forced to join the union sir. There are literally jobs where your not forced to join the union.

The thing is though most people join because the only person who protects your job is the union. So if you do get fired and your not a union member they don't really help you even if you were fired unfairly and your fucked because some manager hated you.

The union protects the working man it's that simple.

>t.neet

That sounds insufferable despite being well-compensating

Not disagreeing with you in principle, but consider who the shareholders are. Pro tip: it's not the middle class

>Unions cause unemployment by increasing costs

>A Living Wage is the primary cause of unemployment

Unions are constrained by the profitability of employers to find a balance between unemployment and wages. This is why they employ actuaries and economists.

Funnily, COL went down and SOL went up in Capitalist nations as well.

It's almost as if industrialization, not the economic system, was the key.

At least Capitalism wasn't as bad at taking private property, crushing domestic dissent, and controlling all speech and narratives (despite what Chomsky might say).


>Higher wages and life expectancy FOR THOSE WHO SURVIVED

Bingo on survivorship bias, it's something people look over.

From about 1870 to 1970, Unions were great at keeping those in their unions well-connected, well-trained, and well-fed. They were very vindictive at keeping those outside of unions out of employment (especially Blacks and Spics), or even used hook and crook to ensure scabs were met with a variety of ill fates.


The unions were useful on the macro level to labor as a whole, but people forget what it was like if you weren't in a union- it was hell to get in, and hell not to be in.

under Corporatism italy and germany went for the aim of autarky no? making trade as minimal as possible.

Corporatism also localizes capitalism, to the level of the nation. no smaller and no bigger unless advantageous to the entire economy.

what is your critque against how corporatism has actually operated in any specific country?

> fucked because some manager hated you.
People don't get fired because people hate them. They get fired for doing badly.

>That sounds insufferable despite being well-compensating
Union workers typically only work 70% of the day- the rest is lunch, coffee, and meetings.

>Electricity consumption decreases/increases according to price.

Yet there has been a worldwide demand for energy since the 1980s. Paying union workers more doesn't change the price of electicity.