undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbobthepanda6y ago0 comments

That's not really a function of the union itself, that's a function of an abusable political system.

The other side of the same coin is, for example, ISP local monopoly laws.

0 comments

Nonetheless, this has been done in many places and it led to ridiculous results. For instance, if you have a booth at a convention center in Las Vegas somewhere, just try carrying your own box from your car to your booth. Just try! You will immediately get screamed at that it's a union job.

bobthepandaOP6y ago

Sure, but you can't attribute that to unions and say that's a universal negative effect of unions, the same way that you can't say knives are universally bad because they've been used to stab people in the past.

starik366y ago

This is an example of how it specifically is. The deal/law with the city/state/municipality/whatever is that they can't hire someone who's not associated with the union. That results in ridiculous shenanigans I just described.

pessimizer6y ago

It's more a function of a state or municipality's negotiation with a particular union, and can be a rational decision for a municipality to make. The choice is between hiring only union people, or not being able to hire any union people.

bobthepandaOP6y ago

You could say that for ISP laws as well. "It's more a function of a state or municipality's negotiation with a ISP, and can be a rational decision for a municipality to make. The choice is between having an ISP/good broadband or not having one at all."

The point is that the mere existence of a union is not a sufficient condition for union-only laws; unions exist in places where such laws don't exist. As an argument against unions this is a slippery slope fallacy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

starik366y ago

bobthepandaOP6y ago

starik366y ago

pessimizer6y ago

bobthepandaOP6y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse