The macroeconomic effects of unions have been overwhelmingly positive. Workers across the entire spectrum of the workforce enjoy and take for granted many labor rights and leisure opportunities today that simply would not have come into existence if it wasn't for heavy activism by unions back in the day. For example, did you know that the 40-hour workweek became standard in 1937 because of a militant labor movement?
Maybe that shows that its the right level to address these issues? Were unions the right way before because doing things globally wasn't realistic. But could it be today?
Like, if employers don't give enough vacations, is the solution to unionize and bargain for better vacations, or could we agree that everyone needs more vacations and just encode it as labor right?
Sure seems to work well for my colleagues in Dublin, for one.
Then you get your cake and eat it too. Everyone's better off, and we don't have to deal with the negatives of unions.
How do we agree that everyone needs more vacations? Too many voters are swayed by the talking points of the wealthy who tend to have a lot of influence in the media we consume. The counterargument can even be phrased in ways that are made to look like it supports the "little guy" rather than the oligarchs that are promoting the message, for example: "More paid vacation means small businesses will have more difficulty remaining competitive, and they are the cornerstone of the US economy. Don't limit our freedom by imposing this unamerican law"
Unions were the right way in the past because employers were typically the most powerful actors in society, with the ability to sway the actions of government. Unions represented an opposing force to their employers, reigning in that power. Today, employers are still the most powerful actors in society -- arguably even moreso than before -- and some kind of worker organising or other form of bottom-up/grassroots power is needed to counter the abuses of power by the wealthy. There are already good examples of gains being won by unions or similar organisations in tech. A good example of a modern conception of worker power in tech is the tech workers coalition:
> How do we agree that everyone needs more vacations?
Certainly not at the major tech employer level with their tech workers? A software engineer can already work at any of these and get vacations benefit similar to what's law in those European cities, and that's not doing any movement at the government level. And my non-tech colleagues at the same companies have the same benefits for the most part (commission sales folks probably excluded, but that field is unique)
So you're suggesting we organize to even out the power with our employers to...get something we already have so that...this influence that's currently not spreading will bubble up?
In the past, these things happened on a scale larger than the union itself, but in which the union took part. Things like the eight-hour day were achieved by movements led by coalitions of multiple unions. Having a powerful tech union that supports such movements would make it significantly more likely that we could get legislation for more progressive reforms passed.
By macroeconomic I'm referring to the post upstream about how unions function as cartels and price-fixers. I do not believe that is true, but it seems like an argument that union supporters ought to debunk.
