Hacker News Reader

Comment by rconti | Hacker News Reader

I absolutely agree free riders are a problem with unions.

But that doesn't mean right to work laws shouldn't exist. Maybe it just means unions shouldn't exist.

I mean, if your entire business model is flawed, should the world change around your business model?

This is more of a devil's advocate position, as I'm not particularly anti-union, but I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one.

I refuse to say that unions have no place in the world, or have no place in certain industries, or didn't have a place in the past. I'm rather neutral on a lot of it, but the fact is the problem is inherent in the union itself.

View on HN

"[..] if your entire business model is flawed [..]"

Unions go a little deep than the concept of "business model"

"[..] I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one."

I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions.

"unions [..] have a place in the past"

That's a common opinion. What have changed from the past?

Because the laws of capitalism tell us that if any profit or benefit goes to the worker is because there is no way around it. Sometimes is a good idea look back to history. For instance the eight hour working day:

" In 1919 in Barcelona, Catalonia, after a 44-day general strike with over 100,000 participants had effectively crippled the Catalan economy, the Government settled the strike by granting all the striking workers demands that included an eight-hour day, union recognition, and the rehiring of fired workers."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)

Sometimes I think that we are all "free riders" on the fights of the past.

""[..] I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one."

I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions."

I have noticed (personal anecdote here so yeah not great) that a large majority of people that I know against unions have never worked in dangerous fields, office workers are ridiculously ignorant as to the workplace dangers of many unionised industries.

>> "unions [..] have a place in the past"

> That's a common opinion. What have changed from the past?

Reminds me of a quote I recently came across by Danish communist and activist Carl Scharnberg, roughly translated as:

"The teacher told his pupils that the class struggle is over! A pupil asks: Who won?"

I don't necessarily disagree with any of your arguments. I have good working conditions, yes. My wife has good working conditions; she's forced to be in a union at her current job, but in previous jobs doing the same work, she was not. She doesn't like them, either, but again, we're both professionals.

However, your reply is structured around trying to convince me that I should be pro-union rather than ambivalent, and does not address the issue at hand; how to square "right to work" laws and the free rider problem with unions.

Right to work laws are an intrusion on the free market intended to subvert unions. I'm okay with regulations on the market as long as there's a good reason, but what exactly is the compelling public interest there in blocking this one type of employment contract clause?

Like, employers can require you to do all kinds of things in a contract: wear certain types of clothes, tell you when and where to show up for work, how much you're paid, etc. We regulate some things like health and safety codes because the regulations themselves are clearly in the best interest of the workforce, but who do right-to-work laws ultimately serve?

If corporations are allowed to have exclusivity contracts with other corporations, why shouldn't they also be able to have exclusivity contracts with unions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com