comment: >
  
  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.
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.