(I hope this is all formatted correctly)

>Well yea that's the point. A company is just a few people getting together and saying "Let's do X because it will make us money". They then hire people to all do a very specific subset of problem X. The people aren't forced to work on that specific subset or at that company, they can work at another if they don't like it here.

This is also true of Unions, you can go to a different company with a different(or no) union or you can go work on a different subset.

>On the other hand, at least where I live, a union is state-wide. If I don't want to give money to a union and I want to work off union then I have to move to another state. I'm completely screwed because every company shares a union.

You can go work in another state if you don't like it there.

>Union bosses convinced some group of people that they needed their help. After that they threatened the owner of a company saying "If you hire off union, we'll go on strike". Because of that the company won't hire off union. Now the union boss has a monopoly on who does and doesn't get to work for a specific company.

So individuals organized into an organization and were able to bargain successfully with another organization? I don't see the problem. The corporation is inherently organized and can act as one force, when workers do the same, it's suddenly a problem?

>You've turned hiring into a power game.

It already is one.

>If the employer is allowed to hire people below the union rate then the union is fucked. They've lost all of their gargining power. If the union looses it's power, they'll stop paying their dues. If they stop paying their dues the boss looses money. So what happens then? The union boss has a vested interest in lobbying to keep their job relevant. They've stopped working for the good of the worker and are now working for their paycheck. We've seen that at least here in NJ with union protection laws.

I don't see why the union boss has suddenly stopped working for the good of the worker. They only exist if people pay the dues so they should obviously still be doing their best job to convince people dues are necessary. In this case why do remaining members of the union not defect? The union must be doing something for them.

>They don't care about their members. They think of their members as a cash source. This illusion that someone is looking out for you is crazy. It's acctually in their best interests to keep working conditions poor enough that people don't like their jobs while still doing easy meaningless things to make people think they are productive.

How is that in their best interest?

>Just because something is called a "union" doesn't mean it's for the people it has united. Most unions are for the union boss and their chronies to make a nice pile of money. Now, again. Not all unions are like this. This is one of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" things. I'm completely fine with unions run by people who work at a specific plant where the union boss is actually someone who works at this plant and where the union's dues are actually the amount needed to hire only the barging person at the end of the groups contract. The sad thing is most unions aren't like that. They're run by someone too big for their boots who want's to make a quick buck and is fine with lying to a bunch of people to make it happen and who'll make you thank them for the pleasure.

A corporation is not for the people it has united. Most companies are for the company boss and their chronies to make a nice pile of money. Now, again. Not all companies are like this. This is one of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" things. I'm completely fine with companies run by people who work at a specific plant where the company boss is actually someone who works at this plant and where the executive's pay is actually the amount needed to hire a decent executive. The sad thing is most companies aren't like that. They're run by someone too big for their boots who want's to make a quick buck and is fine with lying to a bunch of people to make it happen and who'll make you thank them for the pleasure.

>Also, this assumption that the "execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers" is not shared by the average person. The Execs are there because they make decitions about how the company is run, has been run, and will be run. Without them the company wouldn't function just like how without the workers the company wouldn't function.

Most executive pay is unnecessary/undeserved. Many companies would run just fine if they paid their CEO less.

>Also in my mind will be these words of Jeroen van der Veer, former chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, uttered at an FT conference in 2009. “You have to realise,” he said, “if I had been paid 50 per cent more, I would not have done it better. If I had been paid 50 per cent less, then I would not have done it worse.”

https://www.ft.com/content/27e6de52-6db2-11e5-8171-ba1968cf7...

>This paper shows that the standard form of option compensation, with non-indexed at-the-money options, is very far from optimal, though, as its pay-for-luck component is in the ballpark of 90%, and its motivational power is rather low.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/09/29/90-cents-of-every...

>Devaling them just makes people look bad in the eyes of the average worker. Very few people, asside from the small small number of radical communists, I've met actually think this and they are actively turned away by people perpetuating it.

You shouldn't speak for these people especially when I know plenty of people who aren't radical communists, are "average workers" and don't agree with you.

>* Don't lead with communism/"These people don't deserve it, because!"

I'm not.

>* Show a list of unions that are run by people who work at the company

Why is this relevant? I work at a large company and our C-levels are extremely disconnected from what I actually do every day.

>* Tell people that the corruption is a problem but you want to lobby to fix it by removing state-wide union monopoly laws

Corruption is a problem, but is union corruption any worse than business coruption? I'd bet not. Once again, unions are to balance power between the company and its workers. As far as state-wide union monopoly laws my state is actually extremely anti-union so I know nothing about this. Can you point me towards the law that entrenches state-wide union monopolies in new jersey?

>* Don't disallow people to work off unions. If it's acctually worse, then it should just make the union look better.

This is a freerider problem. Unions can't exist when freeriders can gather the benefits the union has fought for and not contribute.

>* Don't tell people who work hard that you know better then them and that they'd not be able to survive without the union's help.

I'm not.

>* Don't charge union dues that are more then what is acctually needed (1 full time lawer, an office, a monthly meeting place). A union is meant to make things affordable to those who need it the most, not to make it mandatory.

I agree with you in principal. I even agree with you in practice in some places. My problem is why do you not hold corporations to the same standard you hold unions? It seems to me that companies are just as guilty as most of the sins you prescribe to unions yet you hate unions because of this and still love the corporation.

Furthermore, I would make a "herd immunity" sort of argument for unions. My mother used to work for a large paper company which didn't have unions even though many of the other paper companies around did. How did they keep the unions out? They paid a quarter more and had better benefits. In other words, my mom's wage was raised by a union that didn't even represent her. The unions in this case served to make the firms around town compete on wages. If you paid poorly, your workforce would unionize and you'd be stuck with strikes, wage increases and beauracracy. On the other hand if you paid well, you only had to deal with the wage increases.