alt Hacker NewsI don't think "raw, unfettered capitalism" and unions are orthogonal.
Actually, quite the opposite - in a free market, labor is free to organize in any way they want. If they have enough leverage over the employer, they'll succeed.
The anti-free market part is the regulatory quagmire that the US has in place for organized labor.
I think that's the thing that most people take umbrage with.
I don't know for sure, but I've heard from knowledgeable folks that it is more effective in Europe.
Replies
You might be surprised to learn that much of the regulatory quagmire you speak of was devised by supposed proponents of the free market.
> I don't think "raw, unfettered capitalism" and unions are orthogonal.
In a vacuum, no. If the most profitable approach means involves maintaining an "all star" cast to keep the best team happy, then everything works out. That's the athlete/celebrity model.
But current dynamics has games divorced from quality to generate the most profit, and companies work to minimize expenses instead, via the assembly line approach. Devaluing labor to maximize money makes unions inevitable.
They are a little bit, because collective action is very hard. If everyone chooses to participate and pay the cost of organizing it is worth the cost and a union will happen. But if a number of people choose not to then everything falls apart, as it is no longer worth it for anyone to pay the cost and the union can't function. Often the benefits of a union are also a public good, meaning everyone gets the benefits of a union fighting for better working conditions whether they pay the cost or not. If so, then there's little incentive to pay and the union will have trouble keeping itself alive.
Unions need some external extra incentive, like the state forcing them to exist or subsidizing the cost of organizing, to exist long term.