Unions can lead to poorer management, when management is allowed to use the union as a scape goat.

@@4336aaa My point is that a unionized workplace will not attract the same talent for management. Unions constantly push back against innovation and change while often fostering an adversarial culture. And, even if you have the best, most flexible and motivated union workers, there are still going to be all the rules and regulations in dealing with them that just aren’t present elsewhere.

@@4336aaa There are 3 groups of people each working for their own interest: 1.owners 2. employees 3. union management

Absolutely. The worst managers in the world are under a union. They are lazy and want a bargaining agreement to dictate their decisions.

If you're knowledgeable about unions, union employees only have the "power or leverage" that the company agreed to give them. That's not corruption. And sorry, but in real life, even unionized workers that deserve to get fired, get fired.

@@4336aaa Hahahahaha! Good one!

@@murrethmedia Please, list the part of the labor contract between umpires and the owners that gives umpires the right to be as terrible as the want?

@@4336aaa Here it is folks, the dumbest reply to this comment.

@@murrethmedia So you want people to believe that the union that represents the umpires, negotiated a contract with the owners that allows the umpires to be immune from being fired. And you think my comment was dumb?

TLDR economics = tradeoffs

Based on being a union member and listening to people's opinions on unions, The reality vs the general perception is pretty far off.

I don't understand the belief that without unions, employees will be taken advantage of. If you have a problem with your job, or feel that you or your coworkers are being taken advantage of, then get together and tell the boss to fix it, or quit. I just can't understand this

@@Dustinicus. The option of employees to organize into a union workforce generally helps employees even if they decide to not join a union. And your suggestion that if employees have a problem, or feel they are being taken advantage of, should get together and tell the boss to fix it, describes exactly what a union does. If you still don't understand, talk to a union member.

Eh, sometimes. I recall a recent story where the workers in a chain of 3 Philly coffee shops unionized, and soon found themselves out of work when the shops closed down. Rather than look for new work, maybe taking their union to a place that really needed one, they started a protest.

@@1krani What did they protest and how?

@@4336aaa They protested their places of employment closing down rather than negotiate with them. Stand on the sidewalk with megaphones like they could still strike on a business that no longer existed.

@@1krani Sounds like that business was a failure regardless, according to the owner and the media. Do I sense some anti-union bias on your part?

@@4336aaa I'm anti-union when the workers forget that their job is to either make the money or help make the money. Workers who think they can protest a business back to life and get themselves rehired strike me as that sort, the kind who think, "We unionized, so now I demand my easy ride! Hey, you can't get rid of us THAT easily!" They should be taking their union to a place that needs it, not protesting a place going out of business.

It's not coercion if you agree with someone to do a job, it is coercion if a union decides they want more of anything and if they don't get it, the business will be without employee, but if that business tries to hire new people to do the job, the business gets in trouble, or the new employees who are willing to go to work get attacked by the ones demanding more from the business.

@@Dustinicus. @Dustinicus. First off, hiring scabs is not illegal. It's just shamed and frowned upon. You know, like how we both agree (presumably) that drugs should be legal but doing certain kinds of drugs will get you shunned. That is how a free society works. I do not agree on the very extreme cases when strikers attack scabs but usually they just get shouted at and ridiculed which is just the strikers right to free speech. Secondly, so what if the business loses it's employees? Are you arguing for forced labor now? Do you believe in voluntary association or not? By the sound of it. You want an authoritarian system.

Ha, when I was at Kroger our union rep didn't even listen. In fact, I only saw him once in the 2 years I worked there.

💯

I felt the same way when Midwest Express was bought by Frontier. The best customer care airline in the nation sold to one of the worst.

It doesn’t have to be a union. Employees could just quit and go to other jobs. The key is that alternatives of any kind are what improve negotiating position.

​@@lovaboy57 Which is why deregulation can lead to better working conditions: more alternatives mean bosses need to work harder to keep their best employees. It's why I'm heartened by the recent SCOTUS decision against no-compete clauses in contracts.

@@lovaboy57 "Employees could just quit and go to other jobs" That's true, and also could be used instead of employees claiming that they're being forced to join a union.

do you call this video a "full discussion"? please tell me what "both sides" are here. this was a snippet from an interview that was not attempting to be persuasive toward any political goal. which "side" was it?

if employees didn't have th right to opt out then they wouldn't be free associations.

Did you not listen to the next 5 seconds of the video? He literally says exactly this. 0:24

Listen to the video

@@Bob-ly4dy after he said the first statement. the second negates the first. why say the first if you are going to negate it. what does he believe? who knows. he made that statement and it's got problems.

@@bertsteinich he said what he believes first, then said a bunch of statements that negate what he said first. he said this first because that's what he believes.

"If unions are a consequence of poor management, why are there public employee unions?" -- Are you trying to imply that the government is well managed?

@@Bob-ly4dy i'm saying it can't change and no amount of union force will change it. a public employees union is not going to force any change in management.

It protects bad people by becoming a shield for them, and allows essentially a private group to leverage resources from tax payers who don't have another option. Public unions are the worst, if you don't like the dmv you don't have another choice. If you don't like the police, you can't call a different department

So I am supposed to put up all of the capital, personally guarantee all of the loans, take all of the risk, AND have no ability to limit my exposure at all with a corporation? No thanks. Congratulations, you just killed the entire private sector with this idea.

@@1Dude2009 That would not kill off the entire private sector. It will only kill off the toxic and the incompetent part of the private sector. There needs to be ownership and personal responsibility. We have big issues with that, especially with private equity companies plundering the real economy and getting away with it. They take control of real companies and then pay themselves with loans they make the real company take on. And then when the real company goes bankrupt, the private equity company walks away rich. It's sickening. If people had to take ownership of their business, then they would try to create real value and make their business flourish, because there would be real consequences for failure. I think that's important for the free market to succeed.

​@@1Dude2009we desperately need tort reform, and many, many laws are simply too vague and there are far too many laws and regulations.

Spoken like a true loser.

The liberty movement was neoliberal before neoliberalism even took root in the mainstream.

To a corporate lobbyist reason TV is what Lenin called 'useful idiots'.