> The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself.
I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).
> I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.
I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?
I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I have additionally gone down a bit of a rabbit hole on this bit:
> the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws
To a meaningful extent, especially in 19th century Britain, the concept of the general public is the product of labour organisation, not the source of it.
It's a pretty new concept — the idea that the public have any single collective solidarity or consensus, can be consulted, have the ability to read newspapers etc.
A non-trivial part of that comes from the empowerment of labour, from the creation of commercial schools and universal education (which emerges from the social contract that grew as a result of organised labour interacting with the state etc.
Unions were powerful in the education of adults, they created unified leisure time, they furthered the idea of trade schools, they created a path to politics for the underclass, etc.; I don't think there would have been a general public without labour organisation. Just a rarified wealthy upper class.
Again, I am literally not saying that they are. I very clearly say that, in some significant measure, the former is the product of the latter. That is the word I used. Not "the same thing".
Don't do these silly bad faith, straw man characterisations.
Labor laws came about because before there were labor laws, the employees would form an angry mob to burn down the boss's house and shoot his cat, and the boss would flee before he was next.
This is the same reason the government protects unions.
Well if you have 50 employees in Ireland who are unionized or even, say some retail shops but the vast majority of your high-income and irreplaceable workers aren’t in a union and aren’t inclined to join or form one, I’d say some number of employees being unionized doesn’t really matter.
> I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).
> […]
> I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense.
I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy.
(Though as it goes, I suspect vaccine rollout and universal healthcare does, in fact, owe some of its ability to function to the products of the organised labour movement; national, universal healthcare in the UK literally sprang from the first Labour government)
If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
> I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy.
???
> we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.
> If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
If you want to remove vaccines and these analogies that's fine but you're clearly doing something you're claiming you are not.
The comparison is the unambiguous gains for society union labour organisation achieved through industrial history, which was a clear public good, and what is lost if there are no longer unions to defend those gains.
Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Unions, even in their flawed American form, are a force pushing back on that.
You still need them. In just the same way that you still need continued vaccination to protect the gains made by vaccination.
I am obviously not bothered if you reject my points; I am disappointed with the way you argue, though.
> The comparison is the unambiguous gains for society union labour organisation achieved through industrial history, which was a clear public good, and what is lost if there are no longer unions to defend those gains.
It's a loose comparison. I think vaccines are a much more clear public good.
> Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Unions, even in their flawed American form, are a force pushing back on that.
It's a logical mistake to think anyone cosies up to a politician because of what they have already done to benefit them. It's much more about what they could be persuaded to do or not do, or worse, might do if they don't reach out.
In short the picture there is not what you suggest. Unions have notable concerns about the current administration, and about trends in state governments which are going backwards.
It doesn't matter what the media publishes, it matters what blue-collar former democrats vote and they vote Trump. You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward, you claim the current state is the country is regressing, and yet union members voted for Trump. And they did so despite Trump's anti-worker record.
> You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward
Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said. I have certainly argued that unions did in the past push the USA forward in terms of labour rights and worker protections — you only have to read about the history of the AFL-CIO to know that this is true. You have most of your few workers rights because of collective action (and as a country you have lost job security you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions).
But at this point it is not about forward progress, particularly; workers need unions to push back against regressions more than anything else. Those regressions are happening. That is what I have said.
> you claim the current state is the country is regressing
You think it is not?
> Your view doesn't match reality.
Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again? Pretty sure I could find you links from 2024 where he promised not to get the USA into wars and promised to keep prices down. But what's the point?
Also some of those links I shared were union pages, and one of them is a White House document literally announcing the elimination of collective bargaining power for federal workers, so, no, it is not just the media.
My view, I think, matches the reality of 2026 pretty well. You have an anti-union government which is committed to rolling back union power and has already done so. I can't change how blue-collar voters acted against their own interests when tempted with populist baubles (which is a time-honoured tradition), but their dubious vote doesn't particularly validate your argument or invalidate mine, does it?
> Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said.
Ok then let's characterize it better. Are unions today a force for pushing the country forward?
> you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions
I'm not arguing against unions. Just to be clear.
> Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again?
There's a saying I think. Have you heard it? A very famous person once said it:
"Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again."
I think voters, regardless of political party, know pretty well what they're voting for. That includes Trump voters. I don't think he lied to them, he said in many ways exactly what he would do if elected to office and he has tried to in many ways to fulfill those campaign promises. It's just that while some policies are arguably harming workers, those workers or those who voted for Trump (which was a majority of the country by the way) cared about other issues (immigration, COVID policies, whatever) than they do the issues you think they should care about.
> Also some of those links I shared were union pages, and one of them is a White House document literally announcing the elimination of collective bargaining power for federal workers, so, no, it is not just the media.
Well there are two problems with this. The first is that union leadership statements are not the same thing as union members voting. The second is that of course unionized federal workers would be against the federal government dissolving their unionized workforce. Other unions don't face quite the same level of existential crises or dissolution by fiat.
Politically, if you wanted to pin me down more accurately I'm against all populists. MAGA, Socialists, Communists, or otherwise. I really don't have a problem with unions, I just think the points you are making are incorrect.
I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).
> I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.
I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?
I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.