Police unions are the single example of a union that cannot be allowed to exist unchecked, because their primary purpose is to remove restrictions on the power of the police.

Given that the police are already the group charged with enforcing the law, this has the effect of putting them above the law.

Systemically, police unions are completely different than other unions, public or private sector.

That is because police are class traitors. They serve the bourgeoisie. That's also why police unions are allowed to be insanely powerful.

Support for unions in the US is at record highs (~70%), well above a majority of voters. If you slice by age cohort, highest support is Gen Z, lowest support are oldest cohorts (Boomers, Silent), which are aging out ~2M/year (55+ age cohort) [1].

Interestingly and very recently (December 11th, 2025), the US House recently voted on a bill to restore collective bargaining rights for a majority of federal employees [2]. House lawmakers voted 231-195 to pass the Protect America’s Workforce Act [3]. The entire Democratic Caucus, along with 20 Republicans, voted in favor of the legislation.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45851620 (citations)

[2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2025/12/house-passes...

[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2550

I've never seen it framed in an article as management being the party with agency. It's always about what the union is or isn't doing.

I do not make a habit of reading any conservative-leaning outlets.

> They falsely claim many things, such as that port automation is dangerous (when it isn't in Europe)

I believe it is not a false claim as much as incomplete. I suspect EU ports are more worker-friendly and safer.

>If you want evidence, look to the Teachers' Unions own efforts to oppose phonics education:

This does not read like an "effort to oppose phonics education". In fact, I did not see one mention of one single teacher who is opposed to phonics.

The complaints are about implementation timelines, continuing education requirements, potential over-stepping of policy-makers re: teacher autonomy in the classroom, etc.

>“To the extent that these laws remove teacher choice from certain decisions about curriculum and pedagogy and instructional style, it’s not at all a surprise that you’d see unions be in opposition to those, even if they support the arguments behind the science of reading,” said Melissa Arnold Lyon, an assistant professor of public policy at the University at Albany.

>"“That’s establishing a precedent that is really dangerous and really could open up schools and teachers to all kinds of litigation, and all kinds of conflict and problems,” said Scott DiMauro, the president of the Ohio Education Association. “You’ve got to always be cautious about micromanaging decisions that ought to be made at the local level.”"

>“That raises a lot of academic freedom questions for us, that raises a lot of questions about being able to differentiate based on student need,” said Justin Killian, an education issues specialist at Education Minnesota."

>District leaders need time to create new instructional plans, money for new curriculum materials, and systems in place for coaching and supporting teachers—provisions these laws don’t always include, Woulfin said.

You are confusing "against the legislation as it is written" with "against teaching phonics".

Seems like the unions have a lot of valid concerns about how the measures in those bills will be implemented and how/if new materials/training will be provided for teachers. It also seems like legislators are mostly ignoring the unions and passing the laws anyways, so not sure how unions are gaining power over curriculums in any way. If teachers’ unions had any significant leverage on legislatures I would think teacher salaries would be higher, which other unions (e.g. dockworkers) are successful at doing.

Workers can't "leave a job at any time" when healthcare is tied to employment.

They can't leave a job at any time if the job is working them at hours that prevent them from interviewing anywhere else.

They can't leave a job for a better job when employers are colluding - either directly or indirectly with things like credit checks for jobs not involving handling finances.

>and can leave for another job at any time.

This may be true for you. If it is, congratulations.

It is not true for many.

> Nobody is a "slave" when they apply for and accept a job offer where they're paid wages and can leave for another job at any time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=low+hire+low+fire

This idea that "you can just leave for another job at anytime" is fiction in the context of the US and the current position in the credit and macro cycle. Is it a job with the same wages and security? Is it within commuting distance? How long and how many interviews does it take to get "another job"? The Fed is cutting rates to preserve the labor market [1], that does not strike me as a "healthy economy" with the opportunity you believe exists to switch jobs. Let the JOLTS report be your guide in this regard [2].

You do not have to take what I write seriously, it is immaterial to the situation. I'm confident demographics will do the work necessary to constrain the labor supply for workers to improve their power position. ~400k US workers leave the labor force every month, through retirement or death. There are not enough younger workers to replace them, and immigration will be constrained for at least another three years under this administration [3] [4]. Deaths outnumber births in twenty one states as of this comment. Young workers simply need to work on unionizing and organizing as old workers age out of the working age population. Support for unions in the US is at record highs [5].

[1] Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement - https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone... - December 10th, 2025

[2] https://x.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/1998409877274726422 ("The quits rate in October's JOLTS report came in at 1.8%, the lowest since May 2020. While the number of job openings increased, it seems that workers don't have much confidence to leave behind steady employment." -- Lisa Abramowicz, Bloomberg Surveillance) - December 9th, 2025

[3] CBO Slashes Immigration Estimates as a Result of Trump Policies - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-10/us-will-n... | https://archive.today/RnFBo - September 10th, 2025

[4] Texas Firms Hit by Immigration Crackdown Add Hours, Raise Wages - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-28/texas-fir... | https://archive.today/Z3lvp - July 28th, 2025

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45851620 (citations)

(think in systems, citations for assertions as always)

>Specifically in the US context, this is failing.

You have existing counterexamples in other countries who don't employ your suggested tweeks. It's a sign you should go back to the drawing board (and history books).

Ask the customers: Ok great. I can already see how well that would've worked in the past. Tobacco smokers are pissed off at the rioting slaves for slowing down shipments. Boo-hoo.

There's stats being thrown about that this Black Friday the number of people buying shit decreased even though the amount of shit bought was higher. Even if you ignore that point but can concede the growing wealth inequality is a thing (consumer class is shrinking but getting richer), you should be able to understand why giving more weight to the wealthier class should be thought about twice.

> but then the good company predictably goes bad

Don't forget the other fun variant: Bad company sees the rise of Good company, offers the founders F-U money, then puts all of Good Co.'s products into maintenance-mode post-acquisition to prevent them from competing with Bad Co.

> It does actually happen quite often

Maybe it used to.

Nowadays, it's very, very hard for anyone not already born to generational wealth to have enough financial security to start their own competitor to any of the bad companies that are actually causing the problems.

And those bad companies—by far the worst ones, the ones that most need some competition to make them honest again—are also the ones best able to destroy any competitor, because so much of what makes them bad is their titanic size.

Whoever told you that is misinformed, because the power of unions does not stem from forcing all employees to join the union. Even in right-to-work states, unions have the power to negotiate contracts which include protections, and workers who join unions are protected from retaliation under federal law. There is an extreme counterbalance in the form of employers misleading employees that unions do not benefit them, as you helpfully demonstrated with this comment.

Unions would actually prevent this problem, because in response to a wrongful firing they can apply collective pressure. That's not why Americans don't want to join a union.

A neutral observation: The pro-union camp really needs some better messaging if they want any hope of overcoming these objections.

Nearly every pro-union discussion I see online or even politician speaking to a crowd feels like they're in full-on preaching to the choir mode, where they don't even consider how to address anyone skeptical of unionization. It's always presented as the obvious choice. Any skepticism or critical questions are dismissed as the result of consuming propaganda (like the comment above).

If the hardcore pro-union people want to get anywhere, they need to stop treating anyone with critical questions or skepticism as being misinformed or the victim of propaganda.

Speakers like Pete Buttigieg are a good model for addressing mixed audiences without alienating the other side right off the bat. Not everyone is going to agree with him, but he does a much better job of speaking to a mixed audience as a group of people with differing opinions than most.

As a group we're probably the most profoundly ignorant people on the planet when it comes to labor relations. We can't even reason about this because we (again, as a group) have practically no experience and even less interest in the subject.

The union issue vs. Japan is a perfect example because you only need to sit in the cars both countries were making at the time to understand why we were uncompetitive.

You also have decades of corruption within the unions. That'll take effort as well to overcome.

It's a good idea. Co-ops do tend to face quite a few fundamental challenges in practice that make them less competitive, but they have their place and they should be a more common occurrence.

One would need to be careful to stop such a company from fully monopolising the profession though. Otherwise we go back to medieval guilds, which were good at guaranteeing product quality standards, but heavily suppressed innovation and were quite extortionate towards new workers. I suppose unions are also like this to a degree, but making them actual profit seeking companies may be dangerous.