It's a commons problem; voluntary membership means free-riders will destroy the collective resource.

Except "my labor" is not a collective resource, so it's not really a tragedy of the commons situation.

The labor isn't the collective resource. It's the negotiating power.

The negotiating power only exists because of my participation. I am not destroying something that would exist anyway by my lack of participation.

Workers are weaker when scabs undermine their collective bargaining power.

Yes, when someone doesn't join your cause, you are generally going to be weaker. That's kinda how it works. Doesn't make it a tragedy of the commons though.

I think you're missing part of the story.

Which part?

Is that sufficient reason to coerce others to participate? Why should people who want to collectively bargain have a veto over the people who don’t want that?

The other side of the coin is why should people who don't want to collectively bargain have a veto over the people who do? (Since that's what happens when management can circumvent the union -- the union loses its bargaining power.)

As for how to choose, I'm not sure.

It is unreasonable to equate imposing something upon others and "imposing" nothing upon others. When all else is equal, the higher bar ought to be placed upon the imposition of additional layers of bureaucracy in other people's lives.

But all else is not equal. Unionized negotiations change a lot of things.

It's easy to see all the change caused by a union; it's harder to see all the change that didn't happen because of the union.

Why is it coercive to have to join a union to work somewhere? Work somewhere else. If that sounds coercive then so should having to work at tesla to begin with. I think wage labor is always a bit coercive but I don't see how having to join a union to work somewhere is worse. And it solves the free rider problem.

I agree with you in the case where a union was already in place when you joined. I'm talking about the situation where a new union is proposed in your current workplace.

> Work somewhere else.

You could equally say to any workers at Tesla who want to establish a union. Work somewhere else.

Tesla’s CEO is the richest human on the planet and we’re worried about workers taking too much? If Elon’s stressing over sustainability, let him take the pay cut.

I may be confused, but your comment appears to be a bit of a non sequitur.

GGP asked whether collective action returns a sustainable slice of corporate revenues, i.e. do unions demand so much that it harms the company. I’m saying that they should look at executive compensation through the same lens.

Elon isn't hired management. He built the company, and risked all of his personal assets in doing so.

From what I understand, Musk as an already wealthy man would be able to easily protect his personal assets if Tesla were to declare bankruptcy. He would be fine, employees, living paycheck to paycheck, would not be.

And that appears to be another non sequitur. It was Elon's personal assets which caused those paychecks to exist in the first place. Elon has risked over 100% of his personal wealth on multiple occasions and there are moments in Tesla's history where if the company had failed, Elon would have fallen back into deep debt.

This comment seems really confused. It seems like you think Musk is “the richest human” in terms of liquid cash, and that that abundance of liquidity came from Tesla profits that could have been divvied up among the employees. Is that right?

No, I assume a significant amount is Tesla stock. Which could be used as compensation for workers, if Elon weren’t threatening to withhold it to prevent them from unionizing.

That makes no sense. Elon's Tesla stock isn't Tesla's to give away to its employees.

Tesla regularly compensates Elon with stock. In 2018, for example, Tesla gave him options valued at $2.282 billion — with a “b” [1].

That’s over four million percent more than the median employee’s total compensation. But he’d rather union bust than be a slightly less rich centibillionaire.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/highest-pa...

That's a non sequitur. What you have cited isn't Tesla giving its employees Elon's Tesla shares. Yes, Tesla did offer Elon share options. He still has to pay for them with his own money. The reason why these options are lucrative is precisely because the company (funded substantially by Elon placing his own wealth on the line) has risen under his stewardship.

Great, so bring a union in. Maybe median wages will briefly jump 10% or so in response to threats. Within five years the median wage probably won't be any higher. Probably lower if union action rattles investor confidence and Tesla's access to capital shrinks, leading to less future investment, in turn leading to less profit and fewer jobs at the company.

With all this talk of bringing in a bloated Detroit union bureaucracy into Fremont, you might as well plead with Tesla to focus less on US manufacturing over the next decade. Yay, everyone wins!

Contrary to your initial comment, it really seems like you have a problem with unions (also, respectfully, you may want to look up what “non sequitur” means).

This discussion clearly isn’t going anywhere, so I’m ducking out. Have a nice day!

He gets no salary already. He's paid only in stock.

Workers can also be compensated with stock.

And they are.

Well, Tesla's CEO is just one of the workers of Tesla, too.