Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point with no evidence to support it:

> Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check?

Is this just an elaborate sealioning attempt?



I have personal experience with three unions in my area. All of which fit my description very accurately.

> You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point

There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion. I asked for evidence, and received complaints that cannot be addressed by unions and links to pro-union think tanks that unsurprisingly argue unions are a net-positive force.

A Union isn't some magical thing that solves all problems. Ultimately it's an organization that puts itself above all other organizations, which includes the businesses they work with and even their own Union Members.

Your local grocery store Union is probably actively engaged in forcing-out young people unless they fork over a portion of their scrawny wages to the Union for nothing in return.


>There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion

From what I can read a user provided you with evidence, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, fulfilling your original request for data showing unions are a net benefit in modern times. This evidence counters your assertion that unions are a net negative, so it does come across as "pro-union" in the extent it disagrees with your stated anti-union viewpoint. You have dismissed that evidence entirely on the basis that it is "a link to a pro-union think tank". That link goes to a 16 page PDF summarizing abstracts from a wide body of industry research, so I guess you have also dismissed all of those papers.

So on one hand you bring 3 examples of anecdotal evidence, and on the other hand a user provided a summary document itself linking many additional sources of research. You have declared the source non-credible by default, and then insisted nobody will provide evidence to disagree with you.

Reading this thread to try and grow my own perspectives, as I do on hackernews, I have to say I have gained little to no material information about why your view on this issue is justifiable. I don't think you're being fair to the users who are engaging you on your points, either, and I think that's costing this discussion any chance at producing useful insight.


Also, the 2nd author on the NBER paper is David Card [1] a Nobel laureate for his work in empirical labor economics research, for what that's worth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card


[flagged]


What insult?


[flagged]


Sealioning is an action. They are not being called a sea lion.

This accusation is a insult?


The accusation of bad faith is an insult.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: