undefined

points

[-]

There are countless counter examples that are obvious. Teacher's unions (hard to fire teachers, poor quality). Transit unions (mandating 2 drivers per subway car, crazy benefits, etc). Auto industry fighting EVs.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.

A union's job is to protect the union. Nothing else.

by qmmmur1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I would be interested to understand more about what you think unions and organisation have done for working rights over the last 100 years.

by matchbok31 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That is an entirely different argument that's not particularly germane to this topic. One can agree that unions, in the past, have helped workers, and also understand that they are not always in the best interest of the general public. It's complex, but possible!

by Cyph0n32 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

No, that is not a “complex” position at all. On the contrary, it’s a fairly simple position where you take no strong stance but still want to claim the positive aspects from each side.

Are unions universally good? No, because humans are in the loop, and humans can do bad things.

Does that change the fact that the concept of a union is one of the greatest innovations in all of human history? No.

Can unions today help disparate human workers collectively improve their working conditions? Yes, because this is what unions were designed for, and I think is the key outcome the Rockstar folks are betting on.

For a recent example, read up on the Samsung union bargaining for company wide bonuses in the wake of the huge profits made off the surge in demand for memory.

by Apocryphon1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Then that is an argument to reform and innovate on unions, not do away with them altogether.

by smsm421 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

"Are unions net benefit for the general public" and "whether reforming or abolishing the unions is the best course of action for the general public" are two separate questions. The unions could be beneficial (and still a reform could improve this benefit) or they could be harmful (but a reform could make them beneficial without abolishing them). The original claim was they are beneficial right now, in heir current form, but no actual proof had been provided.

by Apocryphon47 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

If it’s a matter of proof, these are all links already posted on this site:

https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/union-effect-in-california-...

https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-decline-inequality-ri...

https://werd.io/unions-work/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-13/unions...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/19/20727283/u...

by matchbok329 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Do you think Vox has ever written about how transit unions increase costs by mandating redundant workers and work against technology that could automate trains?

Do you think Box has ever written about how Detroit unions fought EVs and AVs and automation that could result in cheaper cars?

Why do you think that is?

by matchbok31 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Is Rockstar try to ban unions? Or just deciding they don't want to work with one. Those are very, very different things.

by Apocryphon1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I’m not talking about Rockstar, I’m talking about your implied position.