The problem people have with unions is that many of them elevate the lower performers by pushing down the higher performers. The higher performers have leverage already without a union. Of course this only works when there are more positions open that benefit from high performers than there is supply of high performing workers. Many tech workers believe this will be the case for some time to come.
What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.
Many unions do exactly that. Every movie star in the US is represented by SAG-AFTRA, which is the same union that represents B-list infomercial actors. The union helps the stars negotiate multi-million dollar contracts, and the same union ensures actors you've never heard of are compensated and treated fairly. Same thing with professional athletes and their unions.
White collar unions usually negotiate a floor that individuals can up-negotiate from. Not only can you negotiate for better compensation, unions will happily represent you and help you get what you're asking for.
You understand unions are democratic, right? You can vote out the leaders if you disagree how they manage it.
Now of course, if you are in the minority, and still feel slighted (and under-appreciated), there is always an option to start your own business with like-minded people.
Why do we even have the discussion, then? If you don't want to participate in society, just don't. It's not clear to me why I would support you being an individualist (and adopt any of your political positions), when (according to your philosophy) I get nothing back in turn.
lol, nothing could be further from the truth, I have to say though this is the first time I have been called an egotist for advocating for a voluntary, individualist society. That is a new one, I thought I had seen all the ways people that want collective control over society could manipulate my words so A+ for being able to surprise me at my old age.
>> If you don't want to participate in society, just don't.
Participation in society does not require an over aching organization either governments or collective body's to manage my participation for me. I participate just fine negotiating my own individual contracts, my own business deals, etc. I do not need a third party to inject them selves in the transaction. Looks up Voluntarism, and/or Georgism and you will get a since of my worldview, it is far from solipsist
>> when (according to your philosophy) I get nothing back in turn.
Then you have a very narrow world view. The best interactions are voluntary, I attend social events because I enjoy the conversation, I buy a new computer because a need to get X done, I work for my employer because I need income to do the other things, my employer pays me because they need my skills, knowledge, and labor to advance their mission. These are all voluntary exchange where we each get something from the other.
I don't think you're an egotist necessarily, but rather misguided. I mean, how do I know that you aren't egotist if your demand is to walk away from any deal on the basis that it is voluntary? If you reject any tool through which I (another party) can force you to follow the contract? You have to admit, it is very suspicious.
I am not clear how you imagine resolving conflicts in your society. That requires some sort of authority, and this authority being based on democratic vote seems to me like a decent solution. Especially if the conflict involves third parties - negative economic externalities for example. I think to try to understand the world (especially society and politics) as a series of two-party interactions is grossly reductionist.
Not to mention the distinction between parties is rather arbitrary. For example, let's say you consider joining a multinational company as an employee, and the company already has unions, but the legal contract you are having is with the local subsidiary of the large mother company. Then on what basis do you recognize who or what really constitutes the other party - the multinational, the local subsidiary, the multinational including the unions, your hiring manager, or some other combination? What about joining a worker cooperative, would you refuse to join on the principle, because it is internally democratic?
And if you, in this case, accept the legal definition of contracting party as the "other party", why do you have a problem accepting a legal concept of democratic constitution? Or any other law or regulation, for that matter?
You wouldn’t have to stand in line behind him at the hospital or wait for the fire department to put out the fire at his house first. Because as an individualist, this person can tend to such matters themselves.
What would work better is if a union could allow for varying wages based on skill set. The problem here is demonstrating that skill, as often times it is difficult to objectively measure.