Corrupt Union Paradox
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
If you criticize corruption in your union, co-workers often say, "The union kept me from getting fired!"
I know, that's a statement, not an argument. However, it's kinda sorta an implied argument: I know the union is good because it kept me from getting fired.
For perspective, the people the unions protect most passionately are typically people who should be fired. Good workers often get no protection at all. Furthermore, some unions do a good job of protecting workers who are in danger of getting fired, but they do nothing else. It's like thanking a bag boy in a grocery store for putting your groceries in a paper bag.
Anyway, what would you call this fallacy?
Comments on Question
You're half right. I committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. I assumed that, since the two unions I've belonged to are corrupt, other unions must be corrupt, too.
On the other hand, there are elements in our society that are very good at infiltrating and corrupting institutions, so one might speculate that most unions have been similarly corrupted. At the same time, I don't see a lot of evidence supporting the claim that most unions are really out there fighting for workers.
One person who would doubtless disagree with everything I've said is union boss Jimmy Hoffa. ;)
Answers
4I would consider this to be a red herring argument. If you're talking about corruption within a union, you might be talking about their involvement in local politics, cronyism within the administration, leaders embezzling dues, etc. The union's efforts to protect the jobs of its members is entirely separate from all of that, so the person in this case is seemingly trying to redirect the argument to another topic.
Also, I will say, I've been in a union, and in positions where I'm overseeing unionized workers. While I've certainly had a lot of negative experiences with them in both regards, I think your statement about unions is pretty reductive. Their main job, in my experience, is to negotiate a contract with clearly outlined pay, benefits, and job responsibilities. I've also seen the union intervene to prevent good workers from getting fired over mistakes they've made, and to make it more difficult for employers to lay off workers for purely financial reasons, regardless of their performance.
Those who believe in a moral absolutes typically have difficulty with the concept that something can be good for some purposes and bad for others. This "argument" is a mere opinion that could either be a reflection of this black and white thinking, or it can a strong and biased opinion based on selfish concerns.
For perspective, the people the unions protect most passionately are typically people who should be fired. Good workers often get no protection at all.
I assume this opinion, not a fact based on any research. While this may be true in some circumstances, unions are formed to promote collective bargaining, worker protection, advocacy for workers' rights, ensuring job security, training and education, promoting equality, workplace democracy, and more. There are over 60 major labor unions in the USA that protect millions of workers collectively. Be careful painting "unions" in general with such a broad brush, especially with emotionally-charged details from one or more case studies that claim to be representative of the population.
It looks to me that a lot turns on the definition of “good.” Good for whom and at what cost? For example, good for an individual but bad for the business? You need an agreed-upon definition of good.
### Identified Statement and Implied Argument
Let's break down the statement and the implied argument:
**Statement**: "The union kept me from getting fired!"
**Implied Argument**: "The union is good because it kept me from getting fired."
### Analysis of the Implied Argument
1. **Hasty Generalization**:
The assertion "I know the union is good because it kept me from getting fired" represents a hasty generalization, a logical fallacy where a broad conclusion is drawn from a small sample size. Just because the union helped one person doesn't mean it’s good universally or for all its members.
2. **Anecdotal Evidence**:
This argument also leans heavily on anecdotal evidence. Using a personal story or limited individual experience as the basis for a broader claim about the union generally is not robust evidence.
3. **Confirmation Bias**:
People who have personally benefited from union protection might exhibit confirmation bias, where they only acknowledge evidence that supports their positive view of the union while ignoring cases of corruption or inadequate support for good workers.
4. **False Cause**:
There is also the risk of a false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) fallacy if the person assumes that because they were not fired and this temporal conjunction happened while they were in the union, the union was necessarily the cause. It may overlook other factors that also contributed to them not being fired.
5. **Overgeneralization**:
The statement "people the unions protect most passionately are typically people who should be fired" appears to be an overgeneralization, assuming a wide application based on a possibly limited observation or bias against unions.
6. **Straw Man**:
The broader critique of the union in your additional assertions may set up a straw man by misrepresenting the union’s role and purpose. The argument simplifies it to just protecting people from being fired, ignoring other potential roles and benefits unions might offer.
### Conclusion
From a logical perspective, this situation largely involves **hasty generalization, anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, false cause, overgeneralization,** and potentially a **straw man** argument. Understanding and recognizing these fallacies can help foster a more nuanced and comprehensive discussion about the actual role and impact of unions in various contexts.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
As the others have said, I think you both commit fallacies here.
The co-workers use a red herring to dismiss concerns about union failure by pointing to personal benefits. That's irrelevant - a union doing good things does not make the bad things disappear. It's like saying that a convicted killer can't be guilty because they once bought you a beer.
However, you also speak in generalities about unions without evidence. And arguably, you make a weak analogy when comparing unions to paper bags - they do much more than simply holding people's jobs down (which itself is a much more significant act than carrying groceries) - see Dr Bo's reply for a list of other duties unions have.