That overlooks the whole point of unions, which is to give people power over their work lives and prevent situations like the one you describe. Perhaps the union won't succeed, but they have far more negotiating power when they are organized than when they are not.
> I have never seen a union that could actually compete with non-union shops unless there was a legal force preventing the competition.
That's a powerful claim, but do you have evidence? Particular expertise?
Everyone is not equal in value despite being equal in seniority or experience.
A first year teacher might be amazing, but thanks to unions her wage is codified based on her position in the pecking order and not her merits.
They are democratically organized, and as such, are structured to reflect the will of their members.
Don't want seniority-based pay? Don't set up your union contract that way.
The reality is that you are a widget, you probably make less several people whom you consider a less able and "ambitious" than you, and your salary is only loosely associated with your value, if at all.
He is not a widget. A workforce is made up people with diverse and varying skills.
It's in the interest of society to incentivise individual skills development and promotion of people with more skill into positions of greater authority and responsibility, by allowing employers to base compensation and promotion offers on skills.
All business is about repeatable process. Domain experts build a process. The operations people execute. Lather, rinse, repeat.
People are nurtured/developed/promoted because it is cheaper to do that than to go back to the market. But, every single individual is expendable and replacable. There may be pain or cost associated with someone leaving, but a viable business will survive.
If you think you are essential to your employer, film a little video explaining why, post or save it somewhere and set a calendar entry to visit it again in 5 years. You'll have a good laugh in 5 years.
Unions are ripe to be used as instruments for abuse.
This was a requirement having to do with the location, I am not sure about the specifics (if it was a city thing or if the building owner had entered into such an agreement) but I'd like to have a better understanding. On the face of it, it does seem absurd.
The future will hasten the demise of human labor, it's economic inevitability.
It does require the union to have the upper hand in the first place in order to get a company management to sign a union contract with restrictions like that.
However, for this particular story, it makes no sense, because the union only has leverage with their employer, not with the big name companies that have chosen their employer as the provider of the service. The big name companies would just switch to a new provider if they didn't like what was happening.
You say "compete", but I'll bet these people would say "earn a living wage."
If the labor you are selling to somebody isn't priced high enough to pay your bills, you need to ask yourself: 1) Is someone else willing to pay me more for this labor? 2) If yes, go work for them. If no, then the market has spoken, and the price for your form of labor is too low and you should find a new skill or move to a location where your labor's price point is more in line with the cost of living. 3) Paying people more than their labor is worth means that the difference has to be taken from others. 4) The energy being wasted on bitching and complaining and picketing would be better spent finding a new trade. There is a shortage of people in this country that can fix physical things with their hands. There is a surplus of people who can spoon food onto plates, because ANYBODY can do it.
I have empathy and compassion for people scraping by, but I also know that handouts undermine people's self-confidence and pride. Paying these folks more than they are worth just hastens the automation of their jobs.
Collective bargaining has a "tragedy of the commons" problem:
Each worker's wage is negotiated as part of a bulk package, therefore the worst performers get a higher wage than they otherwise would, and the best performers get a lower wage than they otherwise would.
Other side effects of collective bargaining: The union has to have tight control over new workers, otherwise their bargaining position is undermined. All new workers are required to be part of the union, who now controls hiring. In every unionized entity I've ever seen, this leads to nepotistic hiring practices. This is why NYC's fire department remained dominated by Irish Americans for decades after the demographics of NYC had completely changed.
We live in an age where education has been made available enough to a large enough % of the population that the majority of the public has been able to acquire skills that allow them to earn above a living wage. The minute that % drops low enough, you will see unions getting their power back, along with a boost in public support.
This is exactly the kind of abuse Unions seek to end. Workers cannot simply be fired.
The collective bargaining contract signed between the tech companies and Unions defines grounds for termination.
Are you trying to suggest that there is something inherently abusive about contracting? What if I don't want a full time gig?
2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees.
I dont understand your point.
The skillsets we're talking about here (Cafeteria Workers and Bus Drivers) are not conducive to "self-employment".
The Workers cannot set their own hours or rates; both requirements defined by the IRS to qualify as "Independent Contractor".
See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
I still don't understand what you're getting at. These people are free to work wherever they wish, and you've yet to demonstrate that there's something wrong with contracting in principle, when done legally.
People shouldn't be unionizing, they should be talking to lawyers.
The Workers are told where to work, what time shifts to work, how to do their job, provided tools and equipment, and their pay is limited to minimum wage (or just marginally higher).
That's just straight up abusive and illegal. They are treated like Employees and therefore deserve the benefits of Employees; including healthcare and paid vacation.
If contractors willingly sign on for the micromanagement that you mention, and are free to quit at any time, why exactly is this a problem that needs solving? No one is forcing foreign nationals to work for American companies. Clearly this "abusive" relationship is favorable to both parties, otherwise the outsourced employees would leave.
When someone has freedom of association, and is made aware of working conditions prior to making major life changes to start a new job, or the job is explicitly billed as temporary contract work, who are you to decide on someone's behalf what is and is not abusive, so long as payment is made as agreed?