But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was.

> That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you.

Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary.

> I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore.

Deep down, the topic isn't really about unions at all, so I'm not even sure what difference it makes?

Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union, as I figured some overly emotional people would take the opening the wrong way (and still did anyway). I am now left wondering if you actually read the comment at all?

> to say that unions are inherently bad

I don't quite understand where you are even going here? Suppose we did agree on what free and fair mean. Then what? All we can conclude is that unions take away freedoms and fairness. How do you take that and turn it into unions being bad? I don't see the leap you are making here.

Answering this would inevitably leads us down a never ending philosophical discussion ("What is freedom? Is it an act of freedom to fire someone if it's made possible by an institution based on servitude?") that's subjective anyway.

> Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union

You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false.

> I don't quite understand where you are even going here?

I made a punt based on previous experiences with people discussing in a pseudo-philosophical manner. My bad.

Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion.

But within the context of my position that has held that a fair market is not desirable for employees, that would tell you that the first paragraph is very much pro-labour. Fair is clearly bad.

What do you hope to take away from this discussion? You originally asked why Americans see unions as having negative outcomes. How are these talking points codifying an answer to that question in your mind?

I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I'm not saying that it's objective. My definition, whatever that may be formalized to, may well be an anti-business definition by your standards.

> What do you hope to take away from this discussion?

At this point I'm just trying to answer you. Maybe I'll get more replies to my question, albeit unlikely at this point.

I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics.

"Fair market value (FMV) is, in its simplest expression, the price that a person reasonable interested in buying a given asset would pay to a person reasonably interested in selling it for the purchase of the asset or asset would fetch in the marketplace. To establish FMV, it must be assumed that prospective buyers and sellers are reasonably knowledgeable about the asset, that they are behaving in their own best interests, that they are free of undue pressure to trade and that a reasonable time period is given for completing the transaction."

This point is interesting: "free of undue pressure to trade". If there is no undue pressure from a union, why are places like Walmart so afraid of them? No pressure.

> At this point I'm just trying to answer you.

But what do you take away from it?

Given that this is no economics site and that no parent gave reference to FMV you should probably be more explicit if that's your definition of fair.

Excluding that, that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider - you even quote the important part. Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker?

> why are places like Walmart so afraid of them?

Ehm, profits?

> But what do you take away from it?

Why does this matter to you?

Well, we were talking about economics. I wouldn't find it necessary to hold back technical jargon on a forum not specifically about tech if the topic in question was tech.

> and that no parent gave reference to FMV

And what do you think compensation represents, exaclty? That's right, someone's established market value.

> that quote is so far from reality that it's pointless to even consider

What quote? Fair market value? What formal definition do you go by?

> Surely you should be able to put that part into the context of a worker?

Yes, although we've already discussed that to death, surely? Without a union, each person has the fair opportunity to make their own choices to their own benefit, including undercutting the next guy to ensure getting the job over the next guy. With a union, the people must be employed under the terms of the union, and do not have fair opportunity to make their own choices for their own benefit, like undercutting the next guy to secure the job.

This is a good thing. Fair is harmful. You don't want the next guy undercutting you, as that's what drives down value, reduces compensation, encourages you to take dangerous risks, and so on. I still find it difficult to fathom that you are in support of a fair labour market where anyone can do those things. We have a long history before unions to see what happens when the market is fair. It's not pretty.

> Ehm, profits?

But there's no pressure, right? Walmart doesn't have to change a thing if they don't want to. With no pressure, why would profits change? The market is fair, according to you, after all.

> Why does this matter to you?

Because it might help me figure out where you are coming from. Are you anti-union? I'm staring to get the impression that you are. Why do you support a fair market when the downsides are abundantly clear?

How can you possibly think I'm anti-union? This is just dishonest and pointless. Thanks for the discussion so far, but I'm leaving it here as it's obvious we won't get much further and you're cherry-picking and twisting half of the words I'm using.