> there is no denying that it's the quicker and cheaper method
I don't think anyone is disputing that. The problem is that "cheaper" and "faster" comes with the cost of injustice.
> Labor unions are adversarial to change and innovation and especially in this era there is no place for them
Why not? What replaces them? The entire point of unions is to try to correct the serious power imbalance between employer and employee, an imbalance that historically (and currently) has been eagerly leveraged against employees.
What sort of protection against this would you recommend? Much stricter regulation?
1. I can't take seriously someone who writes "the cost of injustice" in this context.
2. When unions muddle the machinations of corporate management and production ultimately shutting the whole thing down surely they will be happy about the power balance they achieved.
In a free market an employee's own abilities and the dynamism of the economy determines their value. So the trick is to invest in one's education and coming up with policies that keep the economy chugging at a healthy pace, labor unions is not such a policy.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. The problem is that "cheaper" and "faster" comes with the cost of injustice.
> Labor unions are adversarial to change and innovation and especially in this era there is no place for them
Why not? What replaces them? The entire point of unions is to try to correct the serious power imbalance between employer and employee, an imbalance that historically (and currently) has been eagerly leveraged against employees.
What sort of protection against this would you recommend? Much stricter regulation?