The laws unions had passed give legal control over significant amounts of company operations over to unions. They put a straightjacket on management by restricting the contract freedom of the employer. The employer cannot fire workers for unionizing or striking, and cannot negotiate with any party but the union if the majority of a work unit votes to unionize. Property/control get transferred to the unionized employees under unprovoked duress — by prohibiting the employer from entering into any other contracts.
It's not a free market and yet you want to place all blame for the failings of companies with unionized workforces on the employer.
You justify all of this with a faux victim ideology that is anti-capitalist in its roots and vilifies the employer for exercising their property and contracting rights in ways that a critical mass of employees, constituting a mob, don't like. Well, anti-capitalism begets a loss of capital and with it prosperity. And that's all we've ever seen from it.
And many of those rights and abilities that you deride of unions have been hard won with literal blood and death by workers. Because the alternative to unions isn't a free market, it's a massive power asymmetry where individual employees have more or less no negotiating power. Those employees that do have comparable negotiating power are largely a rounding error.
> They put a straightjacket on management
Maybe we have vastly different life experiences here, but I've worked with and under managers who absolutely should be put in a straightjacket and shipped off to the looney bin.
> the employer cannot fire workers for unionizing or striking
Right, because the alternative is being subject to the capricious whims of management who play with your livelihood like it's a game. Most people do not have the luxury of being able to afford to lose their job for even a short while.
How about instead we make at-will employment work both directions? My manager can fire me, but I can also fire him, for any reason. Seems only fair that both sides have about equal power.
> You justify all of this with a faux victim ideology that is anti-capitalist in its roots and vilifies the employer for exercising their property and contracting rights in ways that a critical mass of employees, constituting a mob, don't like.
And you're vilifying employees for exercising their rights to negotiate their contracts instead. Why should I be restricted from banding together with my fellow workers? After all, you're wanting a free market, which should mean freedom to associate or not.
> Well, anti-capitalism begets a loss of capital and with it prosperity
We've got quite a large population of people who would argue that it doesn't, because they don't have any capital or prosperity anyways. Can't lose what you don't have.
Unions don't always do things well, and sometimes they do hurt their own interests in the long run, but that's not because they're unions, but because they're human organizations. Non-union companies do the same, management does the same. But as long as management wants to have all the power and control over their employees, they need to also take on the responsibility from said employees, even if it means accepting responsibility for someone else's fuckup. After all, if you had the control, why didn't you prevent the fuckup?
>And many of those rights and abilities that you deride of unions have been hard won with literal blood and death by workers.
Unions provided no rights or abilities that I'm aware of. Laws restricting employment contracts to those that provide overtime pay are not rights. They're restrictions. People don't need a government telling them they can't work 10 hours a day at some given rate.
And no, it is completely irrelevant how large a company is: the worker has absolute negotiating power to reject any offer the employer makes. The only power the employer has in a free market to compel someone to work for them is to offer the employee terms that are better than anything else the employee can find in the market.
But what this ideology you espouse does is scapegoat the employer for the dismal options available to the worker, which would compel the worker to accept wages that you consider too low. On the basis of this scapegoating, you try to justify coercing the employer to provide a higher wage than they would choose to in a free market.
>And you're vilifying employees for exercising their rights to negotiate their contracts instead. Why should I be restricted from banding together with my fellow workers? After all, you're wanting a free market, which should mean freedom to associate or not.
I as an employer can choose to not associate with you and your band in a free market, and choose to only negotiate and employ workers who are not part of a union. But you don't want a free market. You want the government to commandeer the employer's assets and dictate to them who they choose to negotiate with.
>We've got quite a large population of people who would argue that it doesn't, because they don't have any capital or prosperity anyways. Can't lose what you don't have.
That's not how it works. Wages go up when capital increases, irrespective of how much capital the wage earners themselves personally own. Greater amounts of capital is why the US provides wages that are so much higher than the EU average. The EU's greater embrace of anti-capitalist ideology — which consists of the kind of authoritarian demands you're making here — harms workers.
It's not a free market and yet you want to place all blame for the failings of companies with unionized workforces on the employer.
You justify all of this with a faux victim ideology that is anti-capitalist in its roots and vilifies the employer for exercising their property and contracting rights in ways that a critical mass of employees, constituting a mob, don't like. Well, anti-capitalism begets a loss of capital and with it prosperity. And that's all we've ever seen from it.