When unions were first starting, people were literally putting their lives on the line to protest and strike. State troops (in various states) were called, protesters were killed. Frankly, today isn't that bad for most people. Personally, I don't have a problem with unions existing as a protected option. But insisting they exist is akin to Communism imho.
>But insisting they exist is akin to Communism imho.
This is funny for me to read, because you probably intended to imply that's a bad thing. I'd also question whether the forms of domination which the founders of the unions of old has decreased or just changed form - and even given that it has decreased, what is an acceptable level of exploitation? I would say none, and many union members would agree with that supposition.
Today not being that bad means that today is still bad.
It should stop where the liberty eroded for anyone is greater than the good provided to someone else. Also, where is the exploitation? Are people locked into contracts and cannot leave their job? Most of these jobs are in states where non-competes are not enforceable.
It's a trade, one person trades their time, knowledge effort and skill, the other trades money and other compensation. As I said, I'm not even anti union. I would rather see a guild around software development over a union though, based on reputation over protecting the bad performers. It could be considered A union, but wouldn't act like a typical union in practice.
If you are more senior, and submit that a junior is ready to move into a journeyman role, your reputation is also at least partially on the line if they cannot do the work, or put in the effort to get there.
No person's wants should ever infringe on another's rights.
Some theorists define exploitation in capitalist society as unequal exchange of labour, see John Roemer for instance; other more traditional critiques see it similarly but it may apply individually (such as Marx's theory), and yet others see it as a class issue. Of these, they can be grouped into PECP (Profit-Exploitation Correspondence Principle) and CECP (Class-exploitation Correspondence Principle). There's a lot of talk and debate as to whether which of these, if any, is a viable or possible way to characterize modern relations of production.
>It's a trade, one person trades their time, knowledge effort and skill, the other trades money and other compensation.
In the employment relationship, this trade is assymetrical, hence the need for either strong labour laws, a rich union culture or both.
>No person's wants should ever infringe on another's rights.
The critique of capitalism begins with a critique of rights-based thinking. In short, some people don't believe that rights are a useful tool to characterise how society ought to look, since it is clear that despite universal rights, some are clearly more able to take advantage of them than others. The propertyless have right to property. So what? Where does that get them most of the time?
