Yeah, but this is the problem with the current debate around unions. Pro-union individuals aren’t willing to say, “Unions have some serious drawbacks“ and anti-union individuals aren’t willing to say, “Unions solve some critical issues for modern employees”.
Instead, both sides (rightfully) call each other out on their biases and no voter feels able to trust either side.
I don’t think the debate is over whether there has ever been any benefit or downside from any union, but rather what the expected net benefit or downside is from any given union, and perhaps even more importantly, what rights union organizers, union opponents, and workers ought to have.
I think it’s pretty silly to quibble over whether someone will answer gotcha questions like “can you name one good/bad thing that has ever happened in a unionized/non-unionized workplace.” That’s just not relevant.
I’m not talking about whether or not unions are objectively good or bad. I’m talking about perception. If one side is attempting to withhold facts are that obvious and self-evident, then no one is going to trust that side even if they’re objectively right.
Consider Obamacare. Objectively, it was an awesome law that covered millions of previously uninsured Americans. However, it was a PR disaster because people were told they could keep their plans and their premiums wouldn’t increase. Because of how impossible it was to lie about those two things and because the Obama administration lied about them anyway, people greatly distrusted Obamacare, even though most of them actually liked the law and its outcomes.
Similarly, if a worker is told by a pro-union advocate that no one will lose their job with a union but that worker also readily sees that many workers lose their jobs when unions cause companies to collapse, that worker is going to feel lied to despite knowing that union membership is probably in their best interests.
That's a false dichotomy. The solution to a badly run union is to run it better, not dissolve it and surrender all your power to your boss, just as the solution to a badly run republic is to elect better leaders, not abandon democracy and go back to the bad old days of monarchy. Unions are workplace democracy. Opposing them is by definition supporting workplace monarchy.
This is extremely ideological to the point of simply being untrue. The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one. Unions are a huge tradeoff and better as a last resort.
I don't see how "you should just hope for an employer who is benevolent in spite of every possible economic incentive otherwise" is less idealogically motivated.
But anyway yes in my case it is idealogical and I won't dispute that at all. Anything that reduces the power of companies or increases the power of works is something I favor regardless of political practicality.
I didn't say anything about managers. My beef is with the power of owners not their deputies. Managers are in some sense workers and are welcome to the fight if they're willing to roll.
"The best outcome is no democracy and a benevolent king that gives you a fair deal so you don't want elections. Democracy has huge tradeoffs and is better only as a last resort."
You're right. It's ideological. And you're on the wrong side of it.
You state it as if it is somehow obvious, but really need to show your work here.
If it is just some reductionist claim about not having a third party consuming resources, that's almost too silly to respond to. But if you also want to forbid employers from hiring lawyers, at least you'd then be consistent.
> The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one
This is extreme wishful thinking. The very nature of corporations like Amazon is in conflict with giving workers a "fair deal". Thus, exploitative labor practices exist.
Instead, both sides (rightfully) call each other out on their biases and no voter feels able to trust either side.