"A strong union presence is significantly more effective than a minimum wage."
Why? To me it seems that governments have far stronger means to enforce a minimum wage than unions have.
Why? To me it seems that governments have far stronger means to enforce a minimum wage than unions have.
1) It's very hard to set it at a correct level. Too low and it does nothing; too high and it causes rampant unemployment. Set it at the right level and you can get some real benefits, but good luck figuring it out, considering that the right level changes from year to year, city to city, and industry to industry.
2) No matter how well you set it, it only impacts the bottom of the labour market.
A health labour market (including Northern European style unions) can help set wages intelligently, flexibly, and across all levels of the economy. The fact that unions (unlike the government) cannot just pick a number out of the air and enforce it by fiat is a key element of what makes it work.
I’ve seen effects of both good and bad unions, but struggle to define clear distinctions other than one appears much more corrupt
The other thing I forgot to mention in my previous post - minimum wage doesn't address benefits and working conditions; though, it could affect those things if high enough (if the wages are high enough everywhere, the other things would have greater impact on where people choose to work). But, unions get to specially argue for things like breaks and better/safer equipment. Certain standards cross industries, and it makes sense to legislate those, but it makes sense for workers within their respective industries to have the ability to ask for accommodations specific to the industry/its conditions.
If I were the one paying the workers, I'd rather address their specific wants and concerns than I would the wants and needs of the working population. Of course, they (in general) would rather address neither, and it's easier for them to defeat legislation than collective bargaining.