I have pretty mixed feelings on unions. I spent most of my early career as a non-union blue collar worker embedded into mixed teams (union + non-union members). The general experience I walked away with was that unions seemed to attract the worst employees. I remember one individual in particular who, having worked with him for two years, never once actually did any work. He was actually one of my first mentors and I vividly recall riding in the truck with him as he explained "the game" to me about how to make good money while basically doing no work, and how it was "unfortunate" I couldn't play because I was "working for the man."
This might not seem so annoying, but in the Bay Area where I worked, the unions had lobbied to secure work that could _only_ be done by union members. For example, I was a controls technician, and I legally couldn't wire a 12v controller because it was considered protected work. Which means I had to try to convince the same people who were not incentivized to be productive to help me.
So yeah, after a few years of that, I left with a pretty sour taste in my mouth. That being said, philosophically I like the idea of unions. I've had my own share of experiences being abused by "the man." The retirement plans offered in particular were always alluring. But, despite being invited to join, I never felt compelled because I just couldn't find myself enjoying working with the people they attracted.
Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all.
But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work.
Not my thing. At all. One should be able to be rewarded for hard work and productivity when you are expending more effort than the guy clocking in and doing everything possible to avoid it.
I’ve often thought you solve this via old fashioned guild based systems. The guild trains and provides labor while guaranteeing skills, quality, and honesty. They vet their members and cull the losers - a poor performing member should be seen as a liability for the rest of the pool of labor and very quickly corrected or removed from the guild.
That way employers know that even if they are paying more than they would like, at least the labor being supplied is going to be top tier and the job will done done to a high standard and on time.
Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem.
There are some trades unions in local chapter formats that work somewhat like this today. I’d just like to see more of it and more formalized with local competition between different union groups.
>But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work.
They don't exist for that reason, but their inevitable ground state is that.
The fundamental and intractable problem with any form of socialization is that it naturally attracts free riders. The idea doesn't have a balanced equilibrium, so it's either logistically/bureaucratically heavy or always being pulled towards collapse.
Everyone who starts these systems has pure intentions, and the initial members tend to be dedicated too. But over time it will either naturally decay, or turn into the thing it was trying to fight.
A healthy organisation can reflect on this tendency and purge some free riders to preserve itself. The fact that it doesn't, to me personally, just means it's not under external pressure.
Unions are supposed to defend the value of labour. I think in a fair society where losing your blue collar job didn't mean dog food for dinner the balance of responsibility and squeamishness could shift away from employers and unions in terms of keeping food in people's bellies after they get fired. Then unions and businesses can actually have somewhat aligned goals, which is better for everyone, really.
In order to protect the long term value of a profession or some other labour corps, you can't skip efficiency and defend poor work ethic. I think to a degree the medical profession exemplifies this with professional bodies regulating conduct and standard of care/work. Part of this is the generally earnest approach to the scrutiny, but I believe part is the lack of immediate grave concern to anyone ‘on the stand,’ who can be presumed to earn comfortably, upon losing their job.
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience.
> Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem.
I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.
> I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all
Competition is required, rather than unionization. If an industry is dominated by monopolies, not only do customers suffer, workers do too. Unions don't really fix the problem - only make certain groups win over others.
The experience which I had which sums up the negatives about unions was when I was working at the then 4th largest printer in the U.S., and the largest privately owned print shop, when I pulled up in my then several years old Chevy Cavalier and parked next to a one year newer one --- an erstwhile union rep then pulled up in a brand new Lincoln Town Car and got out and asked me if I was interested in unionizing the company --- I pointed to the car I was parked next to and stated, "That car belongs to the owner of the company, it's the first new car he ever purchased, previously having driven company vans which had such high mileage that the company auctioned them off. Why would I give money to someone who is driving an even nicer car?"
The flip side was when the company owner retired from active management to the board of directors, and a management consultant was brought in to make the company more profitable --- he opened the curtains of the boardroom where he was making his pitch, pointed out at the parking lot filled with nice cars and trucks in good repair and stated, "You're paying too many people too much money."
An uncle of mine in the coal region of the northwestern Virginia mountain once noted that a local union organizer was noted for having 3 things in his trunk:
- a mimeograph
- a fifth of whiskey
- a sawed-off shotgun
Any discussion of unions needs to include a history of the Pinkertons.
This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon.
Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall.
Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore.
Additionally most companies arguments against unions make the assumption that EVERYONE wants to be part of that top percentage, that everyone is extremely motivated to move up the ladder, etc. Also they bank on convincing everyone they could be part of that top percentage that moves up.
But statistically only so many can, and there is no universe where everyone can be that top worker who is successful because only so many can move up anyways.
Edit: Adding that this is from my perspective on US views of unions. I don't know much about how it differs elsewhere since many point out it seems to be done differently here vs elsewhere.
> Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore.
I think people tend to fixate on the worker-to-worker differences inside of unions. Yes, that is the most visible part of a union when in place, and at least in the US has valid arguments about meritocracy.
What is missed when limiting the scope to just that is the population-level abuses of workers that no amount of meritocracy will fix. When corporations engage in collusion against workers (now common and nearly unpunished in the US) the top-level wages are suppressed industry wide.
The whole pay band alignment that comes out of that undermines the meritocracy argument, and doesn't even begin to address the wage-fixing that has gone almost unchecked in tech for years. As a merited employee, you might have more options to where you can go, but it won't protect you from predatory hiring/layoff cycles and it certainly won't guarantee that you'll receive a truly competitive wage.
On paper, meritocracy sounds great. I have worked many places in tech and never once observed it, personally. Best case, if you have warmed a seat for enough years, then you advance that way. Worst, your employer knows they can just take advantage of you because you're willing to work without a dangling carrot.
It’s about showing up ready to do an honest days work for an honest days pay. Not going above and beyond, but being reasonable about the fact that at the end of the day it’s work and things need to get done for everyone involved to put food on the table.
Instead it becomes a cat and mouse game of figuring out how to game the rules and scam as many hours as possible while doing either nothing, or as bad of a job as possible. The whole “not in my job description” thing makes a bit of sense when first implemented as a union rule, but devolves rapidly into nonsense like office workers being unable to plug in a monitor at their desk and sitting around idle for a few days until a union electrician can amble on around.
There is of course a balance here, and it seems the US is one extreme or the other outside of the trade specific unions. Other countries apparently have avoided much of this absurdity somehow.
The grocery store union I was forced to join as a teenager made sense on paper. Make sure employees were kept in safe working conditions, couldn’t be fired arbitrarily, had a reasonable pace of work anyone could keep up with. But it was more about protecting that group of guys who spent half their shift out back on smoke breaks, purposefully damaging cartons of goods while stocking since they didn’t like a particular manager, etc.
If the unions were more really trade guilds and policed themselves people would have much higher respect for them, I feel.
And some unions practically are this, where the union negotiates rates and benefits, but the "customer" still gets to decide which particular people he hires (and so the "bad apples" never get any reliable business) - which I've seen in AV production, etc.
I don't disagree and thats likely the opinion of the vast majority of people. Thats why i say that unions and collective bargaining are most likely to be a net benefit overall.
It just hurts competition among those who have an internal motivation to go above and beyond. They will feel they are being held back and either lose motivation or go somewhere where they feel a union isn't holding them back.
And the downside of that is companies losing their most hardworking/motivated people.
Edit: the above was written before the edit adding the cat and mouse game.
Added: I agree as well that when implemented wrong unions have pretty annoying affects on peoples motivation or work ethic. People who are qualified for things aren't allowed to do things outside of their explicit job description/contract. Etc. Some argue this is good, others argue it just wastes tons of time and hurts progress.
Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).
Because the equivalence between being signed for the NBA and having apples to eat is nonsensical. We accept some things being unfair, not everything being unfair.
I always viewed unions as a temporary solution to a long term problem. Fundamentally, its simply a unit or type of organization. But for some reason here in the west they have become this entrenched institution in of itself, presumably because it tasted a modicum of power, that power had real influence over people, and wherever there is an institution that exerts power over people, it becomes prime targets for demonic and corrupting influence.
You had guilds in the middle ages, and that worked well to serve the primarily agrarian feudal society. Unions worked well in a rapidly industrializing country with little to no enshrined worker protections or rights. We saw measured, direct, positive change. But the last 30 years or so, I can't really say the same. Maybe its time for a new structure for this modern, post industrial society.
It feels like a systems problem. It seems like the same theme that we see in for say, startup to corporate transformation. I think ultimately it comes down to size. They become too big and the power consumes. And they become what they once fought.
i like my union because they force the management to actually take care of our equipment. every non-union job i've had involves a lot of making fucked up shit kind of work. that's what i want from a union, tangible benefits to my working conditions. it's not a social club, and i'm not one to be worried about the caliber of people i associate with.
Similar mixed opinions. I think labor absolutely has an ability to make collective decisions but I also believe business should have the ability to fire at will and I am not convinced that unions should be protected from that.
I have only been exposed to unions like dock workers where who you know or the color of your skin matter more than your ability to execute on the job.
Very similar experiences here. My first job was in a union shop, but you could not be forced to join. Whether you joined or not, though, you had dues taken from your pay. I refused to join initially because I could choose to join at any moment, it wasn't a locked decision. I immediately had people trying to convince me to join, while within months of working there I realized how little pride or effort anyone took in their work. I worked at that company for three years and never joined the union, which apparently made the management think I wanted to be in management because they kept trying to promote me. I never wanted to be in management (then). I was easily 6x as productive as anyone else there, and I saw lots of really ridiculous petty corruption take place amongst the union members. Really soured me on unions, despite the general high level idea being something I agree with. I can't imagine ever joining a union.
We certainly don't need private investment to develop an economy. I, for one, am tired of supporting lazy parasites whose only contribution is money, and who don't know how to invest it for the rest of us. It's a completely broken model.
Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into the dirt, I'm likely right. Also let me be clear, I'm not attacking your comment but what sort of comment would be most-likely amplified by anti-union forces.
Maybe, but I have heard the exact same experience from my Dad and others that have worked with unions. It unfortunately seems to attract people trying to take advantage of the system. Personally if I were offered similar jobs, one with a union, one without, I'd take the one without.
Well, I'm the sole provider in a single income family with several dependents. My assumption is that would make me the natural fit for a union given how much my employment means my family stays off the street. That's why I have mixed feelings. The idea of a union aligns with my living situation. The reality, however, always left a sour taste in my mouth.
The word "fight" is doing way too much work in this Guardian headline, because that money includes labor relations work employers do to try to stave off the incentives to start unions. You can feel any way you like about it, but logically if you're going to argue that you have to argue that every dollar above median a non-unionized shop pays is also an effort to fight unions.
This is an adversarial process. Unions exist to fight employers. Unions spend about 23 billion a year in total. Only spending 1.5B to defend against 23B looks like a bargain.
I'm generally pro-union and certainly fair wage, but it's important to keep in mind that unions will grow into their own power centers and have leadership with its own internal goals which are not aligned with either their working members nor the employers.
but it's important to keep in mind that without unions the corporation will grow into their own power centers and have leadership with its own internal goals which are not aligned with either their working members nor the employers
A bunch of people form an organization so that they can work together to sell stuff.
When they're selling widgets, or other people's labor, we call those people "management" and we call their organization "business" and it's the standard way of doing things.
When they're selling their own labor, we call it a "union" and suddenly people have Opinions about whether they're really a good thing or not.
If Bob's Heavy Manufacturing Concern can collectively bargain with its customers when selling its Retro Encabulators, then Bob's employees should be able to collectively bargain with its customer i.e. Bob when selling their product i.e. their labor.
I don’t think it’s weird. Why should a union be a protected class that you cannot fire? If a company can find people to work cheaper than what the union offers why should they have to continue to employ union workers? Pros/Cons to everything. I generally sit into the stance that the free movement of labor is one of the things the US gets right.
I think where it breaks down though is if a company manages to monopolize the market we all recognize this is bad. If a union tries to monopolize the labor supply to a company, most pro-union opinions celebrate this and argue the company should have to negotiate with the union to find a rate rather than being able to just shit-can everyone in the union and move on to the next guy.
Union itself I'd agree could function as basically a corporation of workers. That's not on face a bad thing, but the devil is in the details of what kind of violence (via law or otherwise) is used to try and use that to form a monopoly. Of course the companies are no better in this regard, they use the violence of the state to monopolize markets as well.
Aren't exclusive contracts pretty common in business? There's a big difference between monopolizing the supply to a single customer, which happens all the time, and monopolizing an entire market.
Yes if it's just a voluntary contract I see nothing sinister. If some employees form a union that's not sinister. If the company signs a contract with them that's not sinister. But if some employees want a union and that automatically means they've forced the other employees to join rather than allowing the other employees to pick to work outside the union, or automatically means the company is involuntarily bound to contract, that would be a bit sinister.
Involuntarily binding the company to the contract would be bad, I agree.
But what's wrong with forcing the other employees to join to keep their jobs? That is fundamentally a requirement on the company, that they only hire people in the union. And that's no different from any other sort of exclusive contract. If a restaurant has an exclusive contract with Coke, is it sinister to say that Pepsi employees can't supply them, and they have to join Coke if they want to do that?
Instead of repeating vapid arguments from the past 30 years designed to disincline people from joining unions, maybe you could look outside of your own borders and realize that it's not an inherent property of unions. Inherent to the US and your extremely unhealthy relationship with work, maybe.
It's not 30 years old though, the longshore union leader a few years ago literally went on live TV with a fucking rolex and gold chain screaming how broke he was and that (in his own words) his message to America is "I will cripple you" if people trying to import things like medicines, foodstuffs, and everything else into American ports don't pay more union money to their monopolized union.
You're not pro-union if you still spout anti-union propaganda. You spent more words arguing against unions than you did for them. I'd say your first part of the sentence is probably more of a rhetorical trick than anything close to true
this really depends on the industry and union. In some sectors they hold zero power (software development) and in other they have it locked up (auto manufacturing)
Yeah, total us payroll is around 15T. They are basically spending $10 per employee per year. Or 1/10000 of the total spending on wages.
This is actually small in terms of political spending. There are random scam ballot measures in CA that get more spending per voter than this.
*edit: the actual report details this is just for services related to efforts targeting their own work force via lawyers and consultants. The total spending on the issue is likely much higher:
https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-employers-spend-more-tha...
Stuff like this and also lobbying have an incredibly high ROI. Once a company has reached a certain size investing in changing rules to their favor is the best investment they can make.
Think about the recent tech layoffs - we spend a lot of time comparing one set of severance concessions to another. Wouldn't it be better if this were a matter of contract instead of your great corporate overlords deciding how much they deign to give you as they take away your job?
I feel like the general consensus on most of the recent layoffs were that they severance was pretty generous. If it seems to be working okay, why do we need to introduce additional inefficiencies to get something we already have?
I have pretty mixed feelings on unions. I spent most of my early career as a non-union blue collar worker embedded into mixed teams (union + non-union members). The general experience I walked away with was that unions seemed to attract the worst employees. I remember one individual in particular who, having worked with him for two years, never once actually did any work. He was actually one of my first mentors and I vividly recall riding in the truck with him as he explained "the game" to me about how to make good money while basically doing no work, and how it was "unfortunate" I couldn't play because I was "working for the man."
This might not seem so annoying, but in the Bay Area where I worked, the unions had lobbied to secure work that could _only_ be done by union members. For example, I was a controls technician, and I legally couldn't wire a 12v controller because it was considered protected work. Which means I had to try to convince the same people who were not incentivized to be productive to help me.
So yeah, after a few years of that, I left with a pretty sour taste in my mouth. That being said, philosophically I like the idea of unions. I've had my own share of experiences being abused by "the man." The retirement plans offered in particular were always alluring. But, despite being invited to join, I never felt compelled because I just couldn't find myself enjoying working with the people they attracted.
Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all.
But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work.
Not my thing. At all. One should be able to be rewarded for hard work and productivity when you are expending more effort than the guy clocking in and doing everything possible to avoid it.
I’ve often thought you solve this via old fashioned guild based systems. The guild trains and provides labor while guaranteeing skills, quality, and honesty. They vet their members and cull the losers - a poor performing member should be seen as a liability for the rest of the pool of labor and very quickly corrected or removed from the guild.
That way employers know that even if they are paying more than they would like, at least the labor being supplied is going to be top tier and the job will done done to a high standard and on time.
Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem.
There are some trades unions in local chapter formats that work somewhat like this today. I’d just like to see more of it and more formalized with local competition between different union groups.
>But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work.
They don't exist for that reason, but their inevitable ground state is that.
The fundamental and intractable problem with any form of socialization is that it naturally attracts free riders. The idea doesn't have a balanced equilibrium, so it's either logistically/bureaucratically heavy or always being pulled towards collapse.
Everyone who starts these systems has pure intentions, and the initial members tend to be dedicated too. But over time it will either naturally decay, or turn into the thing it was trying to fight.
A healthy organisation can reflect on this tendency and purge some free riders to preserve itself. The fact that it doesn't, to me personally, just means it's not under external pressure.
Unions are supposed to defend the value of labour. I think in a fair society where losing your blue collar job didn't mean dog food for dinner the balance of responsibility and squeamishness could shift away from employers and unions in terms of keeping food in people's bellies after they get fired. Then unions and businesses can actually have somewhat aligned goals, which is better for everyone, really.
In order to protect the long term value of a profession or some other labour corps, you can't skip efficiency and defend poor work ethic. I think to a degree the medical profession exemplifies this with professional bodies regulating conduct and standard of care/work. Part of this is the generally earnest approach to the scrutiny, but I believe part is the lack of immediate grave concern to anyone ‘on the stand,’ who can be presumed to earn comfortably, upon losing their job.
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience.
> Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem.
I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.
> I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all
Competition is required, rather than unionization. If an industry is dominated by monopolies, not only do customers suffer, workers do too. Unions don't really fix the problem - only make certain groups win over others.
The experience which I had which sums up the negatives about unions was when I was working at the then 4th largest printer in the U.S., and the largest privately owned print shop, when I pulled up in my then several years old Chevy Cavalier and parked next to a one year newer one --- an erstwhile union rep then pulled up in a brand new Lincoln Town Car and got out and asked me if I was interested in unionizing the company --- I pointed to the car I was parked next to and stated, "That car belongs to the owner of the company, it's the first new car he ever purchased, previously having driven company vans which had such high mileage that the company auctioned them off. Why would I give money to someone who is driving an even nicer car?"
The flip side was when the company owner retired from active management to the board of directors, and a management consultant was brought in to make the company more profitable --- he opened the curtains of the boardroom where he was making his pitch, pointed out at the parking lot filled with nice cars and trucks in good repair and stated, "You're paying too many people too much money."
An uncle of mine in the coal region of the northwestern Virginia mountain once noted that a local union organizer was noted for having 3 things in his trunk:
- a mimeograph
- a fifth of whiskey
- a sawed-off shotgun
Any discussion of unions needs to include a history of the Pinkertons.
This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon.
Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall.
Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore.
Additionally most companies arguments against unions make the assumption that EVERYONE wants to be part of that top percentage, that everyone is extremely motivated to move up the ladder, etc. Also they bank on convincing everyone they could be part of that top percentage that moves up.
But statistically only so many can, and there is no universe where everyone can be that top worker who is successful because only so many can move up anyways.
Edit: Adding that this is from my perspective on US views of unions. I don't know much about how it differs elsewhere since many point out it seems to be done differently here vs elsewhere.
> Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore.
I think people tend to fixate on the worker-to-worker differences inside of unions. Yes, that is the most visible part of a union when in place, and at least in the US has valid arguments about meritocracy.
What is missed when limiting the scope to just that is the population-level abuses of workers that no amount of meritocracy will fix. When corporations engage in collusion against workers (now common and nearly unpunished in the US) the top-level wages are suppressed industry wide.
The whole pay band alignment that comes out of that undermines the meritocracy argument, and doesn't even begin to address the wage-fixing that has gone almost unchecked in tech for years. As a merited employee, you might have more options to where you can go, but it won't protect you from predatory hiring/layoff cycles and it certainly won't guarantee that you'll receive a truly competitive wage.
On paper, meritocracy sounds great. I have worked many places in tech and never once observed it, personally. Best case, if you have warmed a seat for enough years, then you advance that way. Worst, your employer knows they can just take advantage of you because you're willing to work without a dangling carrot.
It’s not about just being a top worker though.
It’s about showing up ready to do an honest days work for an honest days pay. Not going above and beyond, but being reasonable about the fact that at the end of the day it’s work and things need to get done for everyone involved to put food on the table.
Instead it becomes a cat and mouse game of figuring out how to game the rules and scam as many hours as possible while doing either nothing, or as bad of a job as possible. The whole “not in my job description” thing makes a bit of sense when first implemented as a union rule, but devolves rapidly into nonsense like office workers being unable to plug in a monitor at their desk and sitting around idle for a few days until a union electrician can amble on around.
There is of course a balance here, and it seems the US is one extreme or the other outside of the trade specific unions. Other countries apparently have avoided much of this absurdity somehow.
The grocery store union I was forced to join as a teenager made sense on paper. Make sure employees were kept in safe working conditions, couldn’t be fired arbitrarily, had a reasonable pace of work anyone could keep up with. But it was more about protecting that group of guys who spent half their shift out back on smoke breaks, purposefully damaging cartons of goods while stocking since they didn’t like a particular manager, etc.
If the unions were more really trade guilds and policed themselves people would have much higher respect for them, I feel.
And some unions practically are this, where the union negotiates rates and benefits, but the "customer" still gets to decide which particular people he hires (and so the "bad apples" never get any reliable business) - which I've seen in AV production, etc.
I don't disagree and thats likely the opinion of the vast majority of people. Thats why i say that unions and collective bargaining are most likely to be a net benefit overall.
It just hurts competition among those who have an internal motivation to go above and beyond. They will feel they are being held back and either lose motivation or go somewhere where they feel a union isn't holding them back.
And the downside of that is companies losing their most hardworking/motivated people.
Edit: the above was written before the edit adding the cat and mouse game.
Added: I agree as well that when implemented wrong unions have pretty annoying affects on peoples motivation or work ethic. People who are qualified for things aren't allowed to do things outside of their explicit job description/contract. Etc. Some argue this is good, others argue it just wastes tons of time and hurts progress.
equality of outcome is unnecessary, only equality of opportunity is required.
So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?
why isnt it fair?
Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).
Because the equivalence between being signed for the NBA and having apples to eat is nonsensical. We accept some things being unfair, not everything being unfair.
I always viewed unions as a temporary solution to a long term problem. Fundamentally, its simply a unit or type of organization. But for some reason here in the west they have become this entrenched institution in of itself, presumably because it tasted a modicum of power, that power had real influence over people, and wherever there is an institution that exerts power over people, it becomes prime targets for demonic and corrupting influence.
You had guilds in the middle ages, and that worked well to serve the primarily agrarian feudal society. Unions worked well in a rapidly industrializing country with little to no enshrined worker protections or rights. We saw measured, direct, positive change. But the last 30 years or so, I can't really say the same. Maybe its time for a new structure for this modern, post industrial society.
Squid Game
It feels like a systems problem. It seems like the same theme that we see in for say, startup to corporate transformation. I think ultimately it comes down to size. They become too big and the power consumes. And they become what they once fought.
i like my union because they force the management to actually take care of our equipment. every non-union job i've had involves a lot of making fucked up shit kind of work. that's what i want from a union, tangible benefits to my working conditions. it's not a social club, and i'm not one to be worried about the caliber of people i associate with.
Similar mixed opinions. I think labor absolutely has an ability to make collective decisions but I also believe business should have the ability to fire at will and I am not convinced that unions should be protected from that.
I have only been exposed to unions like dock workers where who you know or the color of your skin matter more than your ability to execute on the job.
Very similar experiences here. My first job was in a union shop, but you could not be forced to join. Whether you joined or not, though, you had dues taken from your pay. I refused to join initially because I could choose to join at any moment, it wasn't a locked decision. I immediately had people trying to convince me to join, while within months of working there I realized how little pride or effort anyone took in their work. I worked at that company for three years and never joined the union, which apparently made the management think I wanted to be in management because they kept trying to promote me. I never wanted to be in management (then). I was easily 6x as productive as anyone else there, and I saw lots of really ridiculous petty corruption take place amongst the union members. Really soured me on unions, despite the general high level idea being something I agree with. I can't imagine ever joining a union.
Your anecdote is useful and will be upvoted
It'a worth noting shareholders also provide no value. We need to fix both ends of the equation to move forward as a society.
they literally provide value
Shareholders are investors who give valuable resources to business
We certainly don't need private investment to develop an economy. I, for one, am tired of supporting lazy parasites whose only contribution is money, and who don't know how to invest it for the rest of us. It's a completely broken model.
No, they provide capital. It's the workers who provide value to the company.
Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into the dirt, I'm likely right. Also let me be clear, I'm not attacking your comment but what sort of comment would be most-likely amplified by anti-union forces.
Maybe, but I have heard the exact same experience from my Dad and others that have worked with unions. It unfortunately seems to attract people trying to take advantage of the system. Personally if I were offered similar jobs, one with a union, one without, I'd take the one without.
Well, I'm the sole provider in a single income family with several dependents. My assumption is that would make me the natural fit for a union given how much my employment means my family stays off the street. That's why I have mixed feelings. The idea of a union aligns with my living situation. The reality, however, always left a sour taste in my mouth.
Yep, this is textbook unionbusting propaganda.
The word "fight" is doing way too much work in this Guardian headline, because that money includes labor relations work employers do to try to stave off the incentives to start unions. You can feel any way you like about it, but logically if you're going to argue that you have to argue that every dollar above median a non-unionized shop pays is also an effort to fight unions.
This is an adversarial process. Unions exist to fight employers. Unions spend about 23 billion a year in total. Only spending 1.5B to defend against 23B looks like a bargain.
yeah but how much are employers spending to lobby, etc, and is that not a significant force-multiplier on their 1.5B direct spend against unions?
They have the lawmakers on their side.
Who does? The unions definitely have lawmakers on their side.
Because its ultimately cheaper to suppress unions than it is to pay the workers the fair salary.
I'm generally pro-union and certainly fair wage, but it's important to keep in mind that unions will grow into their own power centers and have leadership with its own internal goals which are not aligned with either their working members nor the employers.
but it's important to keep in mind that without unions the corporation will grow into their own power centers and have leadership with its own internal goals which are not aligned with either their working members nor the employers
They are democratically run. This is a problem workers can solve.
Corporations are democratically run?
The discourse around unions is so weird.
A bunch of people form an organization so that they can work together to sell stuff.
When they're selling widgets, or other people's labor, we call those people "management" and we call their organization "business" and it's the standard way of doing things.
When they're selling their own labor, we call it a "union" and suddenly people have Opinions about whether they're really a good thing or not.
If Bob's Heavy Manufacturing Concern can collectively bargain with its customers when selling its Retro Encabulators, then Bob's employees should be able to collectively bargain with its customer i.e. Bob when selling their product i.e. their labor.
I don’t think it’s weird. Why should a union be a protected class that you cannot fire? If a company can find people to work cheaper than what the union offers why should they have to continue to employ union workers? Pros/Cons to everything. I generally sit into the stance that the free movement of labor is one of the things the US gets right.
They’re not a protected class that you can’t fire, unless the company signs a contract to that effect with the vendor selling them labor (the union)
I think where it breaks down though is if a company manages to monopolize the market we all recognize this is bad. If a union tries to monopolize the labor supply to a company, most pro-union opinions celebrate this and argue the company should have to negotiate with the union to find a rate rather than being able to just shit-can everyone in the union and move on to the next guy.
Union itself I'd agree could function as basically a corporation of workers. That's not on face a bad thing, but the devil is in the details of what kind of violence (via law or otherwise) is used to try and use that to form a monopoly. Of course the companies are no better in this regard, they use the violence of the state to monopolize markets as well.
Aren't exclusive contracts pretty common in business? There's a big difference between monopolizing the supply to a single customer, which happens all the time, and monopolizing an entire market.
Yes, but they expire in ways that unions don’t
Does anything prevent a company from negotiating a time-limited contract with a union, other than the company's ability to negotiate?
Yes if it's just a voluntary contract I see nothing sinister. If some employees form a union that's not sinister. If the company signs a contract with them that's not sinister. But if some employees want a union and that automatically means they've forced the other employees to join rather than allowing the other employees to pick to work outside the union, or automatically means the company is involuntarily bound to contract, that would be a bit sinister.
Involuntarily binding the company to the contract would be bad, I agree.
But what's wrong with forcing the other employees to join to keep their jobs? That is fundamentally a requirement on the company, that they only hire people in the union. And that's no different from any other sort of exclusive contract. If a restaurant has an exclusive contract with Coke, is it sinister to say that Pepsi employees can't supply them, and they have to join Coke if they want to do that?
What's the alternative (no unions) like?
Probably a UBI-like approach? At least insofar as it changes the power dynamic in the employer/employee relationship.
Instead of repeating vapid arguments from the past 30 years designed to disincline people from joining unions, maybe you could look outside of your own borders and realize that it's not an inherent property of unions. Inherent to the US and your extremely unhealthy relationship with work, maybe.
It's not 30 years old though, the longshore union leader a few years ago literally went on live TV with a fucking rolex and gold chain screaming how broke he was and that (in his own words) his message to America is "I will cripple you" if people trying to import things like medicines, foodstuffs, and everything else into American ports don't pay more union money to their monopolized union.
Always?
Always. Power begets power. Everything needs to be kept in check.
The only question is where the line is.
[dead]
You're not pro-union if you still spout anti-union propaganda. You spent more words arguing against unions than you did for them. I'd say your first part of the sentence is probably more of a rhetorical trick than anything close to true
[dead]
I wonder if that's actually true - unionbusting is mostly an emotional issue for leaders and owners so I wonder if there's any calculation involved.
I've seen corporate HR got to insane (illegal) lengths to "stick it" to people trying to unionize - to the point of being severely fined.
So I wonder if anyone actually calculated financials here.
1.5bn is a drop in the bucket.
It's cheaper to try and block other workers from getting a union card in your union to limit supply than trying to up your skills, as well.
Not sure if that is a bad thing - labor unions can have too much power. Its not as if the employers agree to everything that they will go away.
Any amount of power a labor union could have pales in comparison to what employers have over you as an individual.
this really depends on the industry and union. In some sectors they hold zero power (software development) and in other they have it locked up (auto manufacturing)
Oh no, the unions are going to demand fair pay and good working conditions :(
Even unions like SAG-AFTRA, which is one of the most extreme ones I can consider barely reach 1% of the harm employers cause.
Considering the annual revenue of Fortune 500 companies is near 20 Trillion, that is a much smaller amount than expected.
They don't need to spend that much to convince people, Americans are already predisposed to hate unions (see the comments in this thread).
Yeah, total us payroll is around 15T. They are basically spending $10 per employee per year. Or 1/10000 of the total spending on wages. This is actually small in terms of political spending. There are random scam ballot measures in CA that get more spending per voter than this. *edit: the actual report details this is just for services related to efforts targeting their own work force via lawyers and consultants. The total spending on the issue is likely much higher: https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-employers-spend-more-tha...
Stuff like this and also lobbying have an incredibly high ROI. Once a company has reached a certain size investing in changing rules to their favor is the best investment they can make.
Think about the recent tech layoffs - we spend a lot of time comparing one set of severance concessions to another. Wouldn't it be better if this were a matter of contract instead of your great corporate overlords deciding how much they deign to give you as they take away your job?
This may be the moment to start thinking about unions seriously in tech. The large employers have, themselves, acted to suppress worker power in the past: https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/blogs/wage-fixing-scheme...
I feel like the general consensus on most of the recent layoffs were that they severance was pretty generous. If it seems to be working okay, why do we need to introduce additional inefficiencies to get something we already have?
1.5B seems kinda low, no?
that was my first thought too
Wow, what are they so afraid of? Treating people with dignity?
They're just spending all they money they saved from the wage theft.
Wage theft is saving them tens of billions in the US every year. So they are hardly spending all of that for this!