Hacker News Reader

Comment by emerged | Hacker News Reader

Tyranny of the many has dangers just as does tyranny of the few. There can be significant downsides to unions, so it's a bit reductive to think they're a universal good and that to disagree with them in any case is necessarily about "the inherent class structure of capitalism"

View on HN

Unions (or similar labor organizations) are not only a universal good, capitalism only works when ^both* labor and capital keep each other restrained. The problems start when either side is allowed to "win". Power always needs to be restrained with checks and balances.

> Unions (or similar labor organizations) are not only a universal good

Can you explain why this is universally true? It seems that the behavior of companies reacting negatively to unions is a counterpoint to this.

> companies reacting negatively to unions

Yes, that's the intended result. Each side has to fight for their own goals. The resulting competition is what limits each side from gaining too much power.

You did not address why unions are a universal good.

What happens when the "Union side" "wins"?

Sure, and this is a good case of things being kept in check.

A union that only subsists because it gets special state powers is not a union, its government.

> A union that only subsists because it gets special state powers is not a union, its government.

You do realize that all business organizations other the sole proprietorships and simple partnerships (including, but not necessarily limited to, all of, in the US, corporations of any kind, LPs, LLPs, LLLPs, and LLCs) only subsist because they get special state powers, right?

The state could do away with all of those and corporations would still exist.

Corporations are a "special power" granted by the government by definition.

Only in the legal sense, not in the economical sense.

> special state powers

Like the limited liability granted to corporations?

I'm not sure you understand what that means. The limited liability applies to the people. The corporation is still fully liable.

The corporation is a legal fiction created by government to shield the people from liability for harm those people cause through their agents while seeking profits; it's the original (well, at least an early) manifestation of socializing risk while privatizing gains, done through the power of the State.

"The corporation is still fully liable." is incoherent. Pfizer (the corporation) is a convicted felon. Whereas this would basically eliminate an individual's access to credit, ability to vote, and a whole host of other rights and privileges, in the context of a multi-national corporation it means literally nothing. They got fined a little money, that's it.

Unions also have limited liability.

Yes, unions are usually corporations. But it's not the side defending unions in this thread arguing that relying on government-granted power deligitimize an organization.

I completely agree. If we look at the compensation growth in the last 50 years, I think we can see that “tyranny of the few” has been the predominant force in the U.S. and things have been far, far out of balance.

Worker pay has been extremely stagnant while c-suite pay has skyrocketed to over 300x the worker pay.

This wouldn’t be so problematic if worker pay was not being pushed below livable wages. The presence of unions could balance things a bit.

Leaving anything run unchecked has downsides. If "has any downsides" is good enough to exclude it, then you can't do anything ever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com