I don't understand why you think unions need to have an effect on the end consumer. That's not their goal or purpose, really, and it's sort of like asking what advantage of painting your house is to your lawn.
Worker conditions used to be TERRIBLE. Unions formed to benefit the worker, not the consumer - or to be more correct, the consumer of a union is the worker, NOT the end consumer. Working conditions have improved so much that frankly, in my opinion, unions are not that necessary any more and possibly do more harm than good - but when they were created, they were a very good thing. We don't have to work 15 hour days in uncomfortable, unsafe sweatshop conditions. And some companies frankly would try to screw workers without some overhanging threat (how often have you read about someone getting laid off right before they would have been at a company long enough to get retirement benefits?)
So they have been of great benefit to workers, and are still of some benefit (as well as being of some non-benefit, but ... that's a separate debate.) Which means I would rephrase your question as "what benefit is a better, safer work environment and a decent minimum wage to the consumer?"
The answer to that I don't know, but I'm sure glad I don't have to work in a pre-union style factory for slave wages, and I'm sure glad no one else in the US does either.
I don't understand why you think unions need to have an effect on the end consumer.
I never presumed that there was causality. I asked from the standpoint of the consumer. Having no effect, hence no advantage or disadvantage, is a valid answer my question.
So, by implication, the presence of worker unions in some industries and some employers helps all workers, even those not in a unionized field?
Honestly, I think it does. It set a new standard for how to treat workers. People don't expect you to work 80 hours a week for $2 an hour anymore. If that was the standard, then even a good boss might be expecting that.
Maybe not. But frankly, even if it only improved the lot of, for example, factory workers - I suspect those factory workers are pretty happy about that.
And I'm not sure unions haven't outlived their usefulness these days...it seems like they go too far, now, frankly. But I've also seen enough companies that WOULD ride all over their workers if they felt that they could get away with it that I no longer have clear feelings about it anymore.
Ahh, I see. The worker perspective of the free-enterprise, or more exactly, free-employment (versus free-market) system - if Company A provides a better working environment than Company B, workers will tend to flock to Company A (which, in turn, can be very selective and hire the best workers, leaving Company B with fewer high-quality employees to choose from, giving Company A a competitive advantage, ...)
Doesn't exist. Workers do not have the same freedom in choosing an employer that consumers have in choosing what goods to buy. So often, I hear anti-union people saying, "Well, look, if you don't like your working conditions, go find another job that will treat you right!" And then I know that those people have never been poor a day in their life -- have never known the desperation of having to take whatever job you can just to stay alive.
Neither does a completely lasseiz-faire free-market system (that I know of); there's always some sector or parts of sector that is socialized or under some sort of government regulation.
But you do have a point - It's much easier to make a purchase selection than it is to seek a change of employer.
Worker conditions used to be TERRIBLE. Unions formed to benefit the worker, not the consumer - or to be more correct, the consumer of a union is the worker, NOT the end consumer. Working conditions have improved so much that frankly, in my opinion, unions are not that necessary any more and possibly do more harm than good - but when they were created, they were a very good thing. We don't have to work 15 hour days in uncomfortable, unsafe sweatshop conditions. And some companies frankly would try to screw workers without some overhanging threat (how often have you read about someone getting laid off right before they would have been at a company long enough to get retirement benefits?)
So they have been of great benefit to workers, and are still of some benefit (as well as being of some non-benefit, but ... that's a separate debate.) Which means I would rephrase your question as "what benefit is a better, safer work environment and a decent minimum wage to the consumer?"
The answer to that I don't know, but I'm sure glad I don't have to work in a pre-union style factory for slave wages, and I'm sure glad no one else in the US does either.
Reply
I never presumed that there was causality. I asked from the standpoint of the consumer. Having no effect, hence no advantage or disadvantage, is a valid answer my question.
So, by implication, the presence of worker unions in some industries and some employers helps all workers, even those not in a unionized field?
Reply
Maybe not. But frankly, even if it only improved the lot of, for example, factory workers - I suspect those factory workers are pretty happy about that.
And I'm not sure unions haven't outlived their usefulness these days...it seems like they go too far, now, frankly. But I've also seen enough companies that WOULD ride all over their workers if they felt that they could get away with it that I no longer have clear feelings about it anymore.
Reply
Reply
Doesn't exist. Workers do not have the same freedom in choosing an employer that consumers have in choosing what goods to buy. So often, I hear anti-union people saying, "Well, look, if you don't like your working conditions, go find another job that will treat you right!" And then I know that those people have never been poor a day in their life -- have never known the desperation of having to take whatever job you can just to stay alive.
Reply
Neither does a completely lasseiz-faire free-market system (that I know of); there's always some sector or parts of sector that is socialized or under some sort of government regulation.
But you do have a point - It's much easier to make a purchase selection than it is to seek a change of employer.
Reply
Leave a comment