comment: >
  
  It is historically, and right now nurses are having some success with it in the UK (which isn't so different from the US).  But in health care there are so many other options.  For example health care workers can more easily do a billing strike where they take care of patients but refuse to do the documentation required for billing.  They can do work to rule sorts of stuff that forces massive overtime and locums pay.  Etc.  There are so many options beyond work stoppage, and again even there it's not impossible.
  Trains might be in decline given how few people work in that industry.  But they don't have to be the central model for Unions.
context: Without them, competition among employers is not sufficient to raise wages as classical economists assert.
  
  Why? >
  
  It's called monopsony power. When firms hold substantial control over labor markets and when workers have limited choice in where to find job (it can even be for indirect reasons like lacking public transportation), this ensures employers have excess bargaining power. >
  
  Do you have any evidence that it actually exists in major industries? >
  
  Here is Douglas Webber's analysis on monopsony power, and which industries have more or less of it. >
  
  Thanks for the link. I was not familiar with the concept of monopsony power, so I will definitely read more about it in the future.
  If, in fact, monopsony power is strong, wages would rise slower than one would expect in a model that assumes perfect supply elasticity. Still, it would not necessarily mean that there is no wage growth. 
  As far as I can tell, there is large disagreement about whether wages in the last decades rose. Many economists point out that per capita consumption and living standards rose even among lower class Americans, especially when you take non-wage benefits into account. Alan Rey claims that real per capita consumption increased by 74% between 1973 and 2004. 
  While labor markets may be somewhat oligopsonistic, these indicators seem to contradict your theory that unions are necessary to raise consumption. >
  
  Your understanding of history is partially incorrect.
  >This is why, after nearly a decade of a labor golden age under FDR, public opinion turned against labor unions in the late 1940s.
  The late 40s was the start of the cold war. The turn against unions was because of the association with leftism, not anything unions did. It was redbaiting McCarthyism pure and simple.  
  This is why unions are stronger in European countries such as France or Scandinavia, all of which have strong left wing parties. Unlike the United States which has essentially two right wing political parties (democrats policies would be considered center or center right in every other developed country). 
  You are victim blaming. >
  
  This is false. If it was because unions were seen as inherently socialist, they never would've retained high member rates throughout the 1950s. The unions declined because of the unstable class warfare after World War II. >
  
  The issue here seems to be that you have bought into the ruling class revisionist history about the left and unions. Socialism used to be openly discussed and a normal part of American life.  Eugene V Debs started that industrial workers of the world and then the socialist party of America. In the 1910s I belive he got 6 percent of the national vote.  
  The red scare in the 50s should only be seen as a reaction to FDR and something inflicted on Americans to break up the left. It was the beginnings of modern ruling class propaganda. 
  The ruling class and congress would have known social democracy and Stalinism were not the same thing.  They used the media to create a monster out of workers participating in how their work is run. 
  In your op you cited bad history on this when you said unions abused their power.  Unions are democracy. If a group votes to not work, forego their pay, and make demands,  it's impossible for it to be abuse.  You are citing the anti union propaganda there. 
  In conclusion, starting in the 40s the ruling class used their power in controlling the media to dismantle the left. The reason this will change is there will at one point be a total collapse in public trust in private for profit media.  We can see it building year by year. There will be new media structures that will become the norm.  Iv don't know that they will try to reverse the anti left propaganda but my point is trust in the reality conducted by the rich will completely die >
  
  
  Unions are democracy. If a group votes to not work, forego their pay, and make demands, it's impossible for it to be abuse. 
  
  It matters none what you think, as I said before. What matters is what voters feel. And if voters felt that unions were a public menace, regardless of why that might be the case, then they will feel the wrath at the ballot box. And they did. Funnily enough you're undermining democracy with your comments as voters were duped into voting against their own interests, which means the only path forward to socialism is a dictatorship. >
  
  That's kind of my point. Especially in the rest of my post, which you ignored. People were fed decades of misleading, dehumanizing propaganda about workers exercising their constitutional rights.
  It's the scary thing that people don't want to address. People were conditioned to be anti-democratic in this aspect of our society, and now it is being done to with the government. Think about all the conservatives who care about the free speech provision in the 1st amendment but are disgusted by the freedom of assembly provision in the same amendment.
  To address a part of your OP I didn't before. I think context needs to be understood to understand European labor politics. Proximity is important and the successful yet violent worker rebellions of the late 1800s and early 1900s lead to a climate of worker power that goes unquestioned.
  European unions today don't need to be as militant as American ones because they have FAR more rights and power. They won the violent battles in past centuries and held that power. Most European countries have worker participation laws that allow workers to elect board members directly to a companies board of directors. This is not controversial anywhere. 
  There should be acknowledgement that workers are a part of a company and workers should be able to participate in decisions. If there are union representatives in the board rooms it makes it harder to dehumanize workers. Bad thought processes and decisions get checked at the source.
  Unions being democracy is not what I think. It's the definition of the thing by the way. >
  
  
  There should be acknowledgement that workers are a part of a company and workers should be able to participate in decisions. If there are union representatives in the board rooms it makes it harder to dehumanize workers. Bad thought processes and decisions get checked at the source.
  
  This is where you lose people, and why this narrative about the "red scare" demonizing labor movements loses a lot of steam.  Americans, already predisposed to a more individualist mindset, don't see unions in the boardroom as an answer because it ultimately comes down to the risk inherent in foundations of capitalism.  Labor, as it stands, carries little to no risk at the standard workplace.  They are not "part of the company," they are an expense of the company. 
  If you were using this time to argue that the future of labor may be employee-owned companies and/or co-ops, I'd likely agree.  It's inherently more likely that the government make it easier to start a business than to further expand union rights (which are already very pro-labor on the federal level).  Getting everyone some "skin in the game," as it were, is a much better outcome than pushing a collective bargaining state of affairs that only exists in modern times and has little relationship to the type of work performed by a typical employee today. >
  
  You have to understand the context of America at the time.  There were millions of poor Europeans that had immigrated to America in the previous 20 years. I've 25% of the country were immigrants or first generation Americans. They wouldn't have a strong American identity. So yes the individuality was there but very strong socialist mindset also existed.  
  
  Labor, as it stands, carries little to no risk at the standard workplace. They are not "part of the company," they are an expense of the company. 
  
  I question this framing.  Yes the concept of labor carries little risk.  Workers however constantly die in the job,  get injured and never walk again,  have their families fall apart due to the demands of their job etc. As Elon Musk destroys Twitter he is losing billions and will be left with billions while hundreds if not thousands of employees will have their lives turned upside down.  How many times did Trump go bankrupt acontrol.
  The risk is almost completely non existent for owners compared to workers in reality unless you are talking about very small businesses. Even then bankruptcy is still much better than prolonged unemployment. In bankruptcy, the value of your house is not included in your debt. With unemployment and going into debt when you are under paid you either don't have a house lose it.
  Yeah. Small businesses and mom and pops also don't really exists on a large scale anymore. There are actually a ton but the ones that do aren't subject to unions for the most part. 
  
  you were using this time to argue that the future of labor may be employee-owned companies and/or co-ops, I'd likely agree. It's inherently more likely that the government make it easier to start a business than to further expand union rights (which are already very pro-labor on the federal level).
  
  They are two different colors on the same spectrum to me. The end goal of units is to fight to share control in the conditions at work. Obviously worker ownership is more sensible but my guess would be after conditions get bad enough, they will turn to unions as the correction. As a member of a union I am not naive enough to not see the influence and control outside forces have on union politics. >
  
  
  You have to understand the context of America at the time. There were millions of poor Europeans that had immigrated to America in the previous 20 years. I've 25% of the country were immigrants or first generation Americans. They wouldn't have a strong American identity. So yes the individuality was there but very strong socialist mindset also existed. 
  
  And then we saw the outcome of it.  Violent repression, famine, the works.  No need to engage in Soviet apologia over it. Instead, we should be asking why so much of Europe seems to have forgotten the lessons of the post-WW2 era.
  
  The risk is almost completely non existent for owners compared to workers in reality unless you are talking about very small businesses. 
  
  Most businesses are small businesses, so in part, yes.
  Beyond that, the risk is huge.  The "Trump using bankruptcy as leverage" is certainly a unique use, but there is no "risk" if you don't have anything invested other than time.  You find a new job, you don't actively lose anything.  Meanwhile, if the person who invests actual capital into the business goes down, they don't have that capital left.
  Disagree with the framing if you must, but the risk levels aren't the same.  If I lose my job tomorrow, I have to find a new one.  If the owner of the company I work for loses his business, he's got nothing to show for it and loses materially in the process.
  
  They are two different colors on the same spectrum to me. The end goal of units is to fight to share control in the conditions at work. Obviously worker ownership is more sensible but my guess would be after conditions get bad enough, they will turn to unions as the correction. As a member of a union I am not naive enough to not see the influence and control outside forces have on union politics.
  
  If the end goal is working conditions, great, but the shift has been to legislation on that front.  Starbucks workers aren't unionizing because the conditions at the coffee shop are bad, they're unionizing because it's trendy.  
  The "correction," as it were, is still ongoing.  We swung incredibly hard toward unionization, and we're only probably now reaching a "natural" level of it (although the laws are still very pro-labor on a whole).  The idea that a lot of people will opt into unionization these days without legislative or regulatory coercion is misguided. >
  
  Wages have been climbing quickly without unionization due to supply shortages for labor lately
  This directly addresses your claim that wages don’t increase without unions >
  
  I suppose an alternative to unionization is increasing individual bargaining power, forcing employers, even otherwise monopsony firms, to compete. Expanding welfare programs could do this. >
  
  Yes when the supply of labor decreases, wages go up because labor is more valuable. No union required. This is basic economics which you seem to not trust >
  
  Yeah, but "basic economics" types hate the welfare state. So if you're agreeing we should have a permanent class of unproductive commoners to keep wages high, you're a minority. >
  
  You’re arguing against a strawman of me you’ve built up in your head. >
  
  I am taking what you said to an extreme conclusion. If the goal is to raise wages without collective bargaining, you should have a welfare state so strong that people don't have to work to survive, because that will make labor more valuable. It works until too many people are unemployed so the welfare state collapses. So something's got to give. Without welfare or unions, people would be stuck with low-wage, high-hour jobs like they were for most of the 19th and early 20th century. >
  
  I don’t think it’s correct that you need to make labor more valuable. If anything that’s the opposite of what we want - “work” should be cheap. 
  The correct solution to anything (good) being expensive is to increase the supply, not try and effect demand >
  
  Do you have a job by any chance? I'm asking in good-faith. Because the people who think "Cheap labor is awesome" tend to be those who have never worked a day in their life, and wouldn't last a day if they had to work two part-time minimum wage jobs to pay the bills. >
  
  I would not enjoy working two part time jobs currently, no, and I don’t think that’s currently good. 
  You’re missing the point that things need to be made cheaper through abundance, rather than artificially subsidize wages. 
  But this is all sort of off topic. I consider your argument done from my first comment. Unions are not necessary for increased wages >
  
  I would dispute this based on the historical record and prevalence of monopsony power. >
  
  
  interests of consumers were aligned with those of the bourgeois railroad owners
  
  That may typically be true for railroads, but there are an awful lot of industries where it isn't true.  For example, nearly 20% of the population is employed in the health care sector.  And increasingly most are employed by large consolidated hospital systems not small businesses.  When nurses strike they may strike for better staffing ratios which are in the interests of patients.  If doctors unionize they may agitate for better coverage or less paperwork, which again are in the interests of patients.
  Union heavy industries may change but that doesn't mean no unions. >
  
  Sure, but what about patients who need nursing care during the strike? All you need is one journalist to report "Patients Suffer During Nursing Strike" and it will tug at the voter's heartstrings. And then the governments involved will crackdown on the strike. That's what happened since the 1940s. This is why I say in the US unionization would necessitate a top-down approach. >
  
  A stop work strike is not the only possible strike let alone the only possible Union action. >
  
  But isn't that the most common strike?