Milton Freidman was 100% wrong about unions and if he had any sense he would have advocated that unions are as much of a necessity for capitalism as are corporations. They are one of the checks and balances on corporate power.
Until they get all of the power. Then what sort of checks and balances do you have in the marketplace.
Where and when has that ever happened?
The teachers union strike in Chicago which happened not to long ago is a good example. Its very difficult to fire a teacher there. It's great if you are a teacher, not so much if you are a student in a classroom taught by a teacher who is under-performing. The parents want to be able to identify good teachers and reward them with merit pay, but this isn't want the unions want. What the unions want is everyone to have equal treatment, so no one will know the difference.
The unions there weren't fighting for fair treatment. They were fighting for the lack of accountability. When a union has gained enough power to the point of where they no longer want to be held accountable for what they do, they have far too much power.
And this is the problem with public sector unions. At least a private sector business can move out of the state, and then the teachers would be forced to decide if their jobs are worth it. In a public sector job, these employers are stuck.
As in when the employer holds 99.9% of the power and the employee holds 0.01% at most?
Business isn't a one way street. Your employer needs your skills or labour as much as you need his money and benefits. If your employer has all of the bargaining power, it is possible you do not offer much in the table in terms of skills or labour (meaning, your job is a dime a dozen), or your employer has no competition. I am not unionised at all and my employer would cut my wages to zero if he thought he could get away with it. The only thing stopping him is my competition.
Competition also holds as a form of checks and balances. If you don't treat your consumers right, you will lose them to businesses who will. If you don't treat your employees well, you will also lose them to businesses who will.
Definition of 'Capitalism'
An economic system based on a
free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
Open competition, Free Markets doesn't allow for any regulation in the favor of another business, which often happens when regulation is used for the 'good of the people.'
Care to name those economies?
We agree that a "strong foundation of The Rule of Law" is essential however reality dictates that the "Rule of Law" is subject to whomever can pay off the most politicians. That problem exists across the board. Until it is resolved there will forever be an "imbalance" between the power of the corporations and the workers. Unions are the single most effective tool that can address this deficiency. Until we have true "Rule of Law" we need strong effective unions in place.
Hong Kong, Singapore, and I'm pretty sure Qatar has probably never heard of a Union. Singapore often a good example, one of the countries with a highest income per capita and one of the few countries not daft enough to institute a minimum wage law, something labour unions are very big fans of.
Rule of Law dictates that everyone abides by the same rules, regardless of who they are. When you have government picking winners and losers, you no longer have an effective rule of law. This is why small regulation is essential for capitalism to work. The more power you give the government, the more influence these wealthy individuals seek. The government in turn works as defacto protectionism for these corporations and unions.
Seriously, you need to look at the specific trends and allegiances, and the relations there with doing just, both failures and successes.
