Comment by KorematsuFredt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KorematsuFredt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think OP made a correct argument that that we quickly make this right vs left without dissecting the actual impacts of workers unions. Your comment kind of demonstrates that.

> In terms of overall welfare

What is overall welfare ? If you are talking about society then we already know that free market competition leads to the best outcomes. If you are talking about welfare of specific group of people (at the expense of others) then you are right.

> I'm in favor of workers' ability to elect someone to represent them at the negotiation table (because that is what a union is).

I do not think anyone is opposed to that idea. It is covered under our freedom to form association. But in many cases unions are exact opposite of this. There is only one union which will negotiate on your behalf whether you like it or not and will actively prevent you from selecting someone else to negotiate on your behalf. In such cases workers are less free than before and it is much easier for the employer to get their way by just bribing the union leaders. (This is what happens in every single society where unions have collective bargaining rights.)

> If you are talking about society then we already know that free market competition leads to the best outcomes.

Who's “we”? I was under the impression that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure was accurate.

Market failure is applicable only in limited cases to the extent that it matters. Employment in this case is not one of those.

So how do you explain… *gestures around* ?

Employment is one of the most obvious, salient examples of market failure I can think of. Exploitative employers engineer situations where employees can't even use the job market, because they need a job and job-shopping (e.g. taking time off-call to do interviews) will lose them their job. Example: Arise Virtual Solutions[0].

If that's not a good enough example? See the gig economy. Companies taking over a service sector “with an app”, at a loss (using investor money), then squeezing the money back out of employees (e.g. by misclassifying them, not telling them how much each gig pays, programming virtual micromanagers to work them to the point of health problems in the name of “efficiency”). To use your words:

> If you are talking about welfare of specific group of people (at the expense of others) then you are right.

[0]: https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/02/chickenized-by-arise/#ari...

> If you are talking about society then we already know that free market competition leads to the best outcomes.

It's easy to find lump sum transfers that would be welfare enhancing over the pareto optimal outcome decided by the market.

> There is only one union which will negotiate on your behalf whether you like it or not and will actively prevent you from selecting someone else to negotiate on your behalf.

Well yes, you are beholden to the results of the election - even if the side you voted for didn't win. That is what worker self-determination is all about.

> it is much easier for the employer to get their way by just bribing the union leaders

Then why don't employers bring in unions more often?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com