7 ms·

so unionize. corporations and capitalists are looking out for their own profit margins and bottom lines. it's time you guys start doing the same again. in unive

• vijayr 11y ago
  so unionize Easier said than done. Most people don't realize they are getting screwed out of their wages. They just think they need to work harder/smarter to get ahead. They also think unions are socialist/communist etc. Then there are corporations who will do anything in their power to stop people from unionizing.
  • aianus 11y ago
    I would rather make less money than have part of my paycheck forcibly removed and given to politician-types so they can defend other losers' jobs against competition because they have 'seniority'.
    • BrainInAJar 11y ago
      so you'd rather fuck yourself out of spite?
      • aianus 11y ago
        Absolutely. It's all relative anyways; doing better in absolute terms is less important than doing better relative to parasitic morons like those protected and enriched by unions.
        • x5n1 11y ago
          my unions prof said he wanted the right to fire one moron per year and that would be enough to solve this problem. because usually there is only one or two problem employees.
          • mc32 11y ago
            I don't think that would fix it. If he doesn't fire anyone, it's not effective, and once he does the quota is filled and the rest are free to dilly dally the rest of the year.
            • tormeh 11y ago
              Most people don't work that way. There are many places where firing people is near impossible, but 99% still do a solid job.
              • x5n1 11y ago
                People work because they want their lives to mean something. Usually if you put people in a group with an objective regardless of a reward they will try to achieve the objective.
              • aianus 11y ago
                If you hold entry salaries and promotion opportunities down with unions you dissuade more qualified people from considering your career entirely. Why become a high school CS teacher making half as much as the less-skilled older teachers around you when you can go into non-union industry and make triple? My high school CS teacher was a history major who didn't know anything about CS and barely stayed a couple lessons ahead of us in the textbook. It's not that he was lazy or didn't take his job seriously; he was the only person willing to do it at all! Which is a direct consequence of teachers unions.
                • tormeh 11y ago
                  What, you think a high school would pay the same that private industry would?
    • lumberjack 11y ago
      FYI, seniority isn't some form of union corruption or malice. It's a fundamental strategy employed to reduce workplace competition which is what gives unions the leverage they need against the employer. Without seniority, you get three problems: 1. The employer can again directly influence employee decisions by promoting those that side with them instead of with the union. So then in case of a strike, he'd say beforehand that he'll only consider a promotion for those who don't participate in the strike. 2. Junior union members do not really have a guarantee that it is worth the effort to join the union if they might end up still in entry level positions after X years. Seniority will affect them negatively in the first few years but then they will be guaranteed the same promotions. 3. Senior members would probably cause lots of issues within the union if they didn't get promoted before the young guys even if it was fair to promote the more skillful young. After all they participated in the union for longer at a significant cost and it's only due to their participation that the skillful young enjoy the workplace benefits they have. This might tear apart the union. Now if you look at this through the "I'm better than anyone else around me" sort of tinted glasses you'll never really get any of this and it's probably not for you. Unions are for people who want to minimize employment risk because they have lots of responsibilities and cannot afford to be highly motivated corporate career climbers.
      • pdkl95 11y ago
        This is a good overview of why these methods are used. Unfortunately, a lot of people in engineering fields seem to assume that these particular tactics are the only way a union can be run. Usually, the reaction to the idea that engineers should really unionise is causes an immediately hostile reaction. A union is what you (the members) want it to be, and a union that only addressed certain topics[1] would probably stop some problems from happening at all. There's no reason to authorize a union to interfere with the more mundane problems unless you want those feature and design the union to have those powers. The key thing to remember - which the usual knee-jerk anti-union rhetoric ignores - is that problems start to grow when too much power accumulates in any one place. Neither labor or capital can be allowed to grow to powerful, as it is the conflict between them that keeps each side restrained. A few decades ago we saw the problems of labor getting too powerful, and before that the problems of capital (business owners) having too much power was obvious. Like any control system, you have to design feedback[2] into the control mechanisms. [1] Issues involving collusion like the recent wage-fixing agreement between Apple/Google/Intel/{...} or the "working recent grads to death" (13 hours/day, 7 days/week) that EA used to require. [2] If only we had a sociological version of a PID controller.
    • bildung 11y ago
      > I would rather make less money than have part of my paycheck forcibly removed and given to politician-types so they can defend other losers' jobs against competition because they have 'seniority'. That argument is the reason why real wages in the US haven't grown in the last 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_...
    • bsder 11y ago
      'seniority' is also there so that the company can't just fire you when you start getting expensive. I always love these discussions about "merit" when we have already seen that even tech companies don't give one iota of damn about labor anything beyond "cheap". See: H1-B visa.
      • aianus 11y ago
        How do you accidentally 'start getting expensive'? Why are they giving you raises in the first place if they don't think you're worth the money? Edit: furthermore, why shouldn't you be fired if you're not performing to the level they expect at the price they're paying for you?
• eru 11y ago
  If unions really manage to drive up wages, why would any company want to hire anyone in a union? (Especially for gigs where you can hire anyone worldwide.)
  • interesting_att 11y ago
    Management usually don't WANT unions. But in many cases, they can't stop them from forming, so they have to deal with them.
    • eru 11y ago
      Let the unions form all they want. As long as the boss doesn't negotiate with them, how do they have any power? Or is there some legal protection that says you can't fire people who refuse to work (ie strike) if and only if they are in a union? Of course, the boss would have to have a reputation / commitment to acting that way, so that people don't try.
      • x5n1 11y ago
        you can not fire people in unions just for belonging to a union and yes there is legislation that says that if a union forms then you have to deal with the union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_to_organize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_...
        • eru 11y ago
          OK, then just don't negotiate at all (or only negotiate pro forma, if legally obliged), and fire anyway who goes on strike? Make it clear that this will happen, and if your commitment is credible, you'll never see a strike.
          • pdkl95 11y ago
            Escalating the conflict is rarely a good idea. It's not like this hasn't been tried before; labor simply had to find more creative ways of taking Direct Action; the "strike" is only one of their options. The "blue flu" is a traditional way get around that type of threat. A particularly effective tactic is "work to rule", which is a de facto strike specifically designed to get around threats from management; it's harder to justify firing someone for following all safety/regulatory requirements. If an industry is being particularly problematic, this is where it pays to be on good diplomatic terms with other unions, because the "nuclear option" for a network of unions is the General Strike. If management has any sanity at all, they will choose to negotiate well before such tactics become necessary. Strength in numbers is usually a winning strategy, and the most effective counter is to convince people that they shouldn't fight back.
• tbrownaw 11y ago
  Don't unions only work if hiring non-union people doesn't work well?
• lumberjack 11y ago
  I don't think unions are going to cut it this time round. The problem is that there is too much labour competition in the first place. It's probably more fruitful to look into the whole "I file taxes as a contractor and get no benefits but I am effectively an employee" thing. I remember people on here complaining about that for a long time so it's a big enough issue that affects people in many job sectors.
• einrealist 11y ago
  As much as I like that idea, there are two basic misconceptions about that. First, the contractors are self-employed and therefor compete with each other. In a union, employees do not really compete with each other. Second, because the contractors compete with each other, they are liable to competition laws. A "union" in this matter would be a cartel and thus illegal. Although, a state could and should introduce regulations that strengthen the interests of small contractors.
  • x5n1 11y ago
    Though contractor can not unionize workers of a certain industry can unionize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism Workers can also unionize according to craft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_unionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_unionism The point of the article was that in some cases the judges have ruled that the "contractors" should be employees. And then if that's the case then they should be able to form a union. I however was making a general point and not a specific point. Corporations and employers obviously want to force everyone into a freelance sort of position with no job security. There are numerous benefits in it for them. Someone has to do something to fight this. Because they do hold all the cards in this case. And they don't really need employees. Uber's long term strategy of automation, which is what this is about in the long run, will essentially destroy the industry. In the long run that's really what you are dealing with. This is just one shot in that battle.
    • einrealist 11y ago
      Of course, people and businesses can form interest groups. But they are still liable to competition laws. Price fixing is not allowed. Such a interest group can agree on certain standards, but not pricing or anything that would stifle competition. Yes, if Uber needs to employ their former contractors a because of misclassification rulings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees_as_independent_contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees...) - I like the German word "Scheinselbstständigkeit" - they then can form a union.