Every time there's an article about unionization (here, yes, but anywhere else too), there's someone in that article extolling the virtues of all unions, followed up by others denigrating the state of unions.
As a younger man, I've been a member of unions that were good, and unions that were bad, and while I don't remotely proclaim myself to be an expert on them, but I am experienced enough to have observed what I believe are patterns.
Ideally, unions aim to solve power imbalance between workers and employers, which it does by giving power to a presumably disadvantaged party. Where the employees are already in demand, or are highly skilled, what have you, employers already have to work hard to maintain the employee base it has because replacement employees are difficult to find.
Where the employees are less skilled, or more easily replaceable, unions can be super effective at raising workplace standards and wage negotiations.
That said, I'm wary of anyone who speaks in absolutes to either end. Some unions arrive at too much power, and can be self-defeating or exploitative. Some unions are corrupt. Some unions don't work very hard for their members. Some unions are horrible, and then turn it around, and vice versa. Unions can be effective at raising wage floors, but can also lower ceilings for workers who might be best off without them.
The assertion that any given union is de facto good or bad seems flawed to me, as I've seen both sides of that particular coin, and like all eco-systems, work very well when a particular set of conditions are met and a particular balance is struck.
"Where the employees are less skilled, or more easily replaceable, unions can be super effective at raising workplace standards and wage negotiations."
The presence of a union can also make the difference in management resorting to close/offshore the operation altogether.
As a younger man, I've been a member of unions that were good, and unions that were bad, and while I don't remotely proclaim myself to be an expert on them, but I am experienced enough to have observed what I believe are patterns.
Ideally, unions aim to solve power imbalance between workers and employers, which it does by giving power to a presumably disadvantaged party. Where the employees are already in demand, or are highly skilled, what have you, employers already have to work hard to maintain the employee base it has because replacement employees are difficult to find.
Where the employees are less skilled, or more easily replaceable, unions can be super effective at raising workplace standards and wage negotiations.
That said, I'm wary of anyone who speaks in absolutes to either end. Some unions arrive at too much power, and can be self-defeating or exploitative. Some unions are corrupt. Some unions don't work very hard for their members. Some unions are horrible, and then turn it around, and vice versa. Unions can be effective at raising wage floors, but can also lower ceilings for workers who might be best off without them.
The assertion that any given union is de facto good or bad seems flawed to me, as I've seen both sides of that particular coin, and like all eco-systems, work very well when a particular set of conditions are met and a particular balance is struck.