That’s not a Union thing, that’s a system thing. Anyone fiercely on either extreme of the spectrum is missing the forest for the trees and proudly waving their willful ignorance of the dynamics of power.
In an ideal scenario, Unions and Shareholders would cooperate to achieve suitable outcomes for both parties; in reality, the amount of power needed to even get a Union off the ground and keep it sustained against the onslaught of Capital means those who wield said power are inclined to use it often. It’s why the (debatably) smarter gamble has been more workers forming anti-Capital institutions: cooperatives, union-first enterprises, sustainable corporations with stringent, anti-Capital bylaws. By removing Capital’s power early, those who do come to the table are more likely to negotiate in good faith rather than scorched-earth tactics.
Don’t slight unions as a whole just because power dynamics in a Capitalist society dictate everything be a zero-sum game. Instead, focus on building a better game and fairer set of rules, and recognize Unions are part of that.
This is just a belief. A belief that allows you to do anything, and can absolve anyone of any evil.
Why stop there? Why have systems or government at all? Why even bother making murder illegal? After all, it's human nature. After all, it's just how life works. After all, the strong win, and the weak get eaten. Everyone knows that.
… and yet today in this imperfect system murder is illegal, and the weak thrive, even if they do not thrive as much as the strong.
The point is not which system gets rid of these, in my opinion, permanent aspects of human nature, but which one results in the best outcome despite them.
If the belief is the collectivism deals with these issues better, that’s wonderful. But I never hear that, instead, I hear that not-collectivist systems are the one and only cause of these systems, and that only collectivism will solve them. And I just don’t believe that’s true, and I think we have lots of historical evidence of societies that tried forced collectivization and failed.
I'd strongly disagree, as there are examples of societies that don't exhibit these traits. See the Kogi from Colombia for example. A necessity environmental condition seems to be that social groups size stays within certain limits (around 120 as I remember).
> Instead, focus on building a better game and fairer set of rules, and recognize Unions are part of that.
I’d prefer a more European system. But faced with a choice between American-style unions with their mob roots and silicon valley, I’ll choose the latter.
In an ideal scenario, Unions and Shareholders would cooperate to achieve suitable outcomes for both parties; in reality, the amount of power needed to even get a Union off the ground and keep it sustained against the onslaught of Capital means those who wield said power are inclined to use it often. It’s why the (debatably) smarter gamble has been more workers forming anti-Capital institutions: cooperatives, union-first enterprises, sustainable corporations with stringent, anti-Capital bylaws. By removing Capital’s power early, those who do come to the table are more likely to negotiate in good faith rather than scorched-earth tactics.
Don’t slight unions as a whole just because power dynamics in a Capitalist society dictate everything be a zero-sum game. Instead, focus on building a better game and fairer set of rules, and recognize Unions are part of that.