11 ms·

The US itself is an infertile landscape for unions. I guess that massive corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working. You cannot talk about unions o

The US itself is an infertile landscape for unions. I guess that massive corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working. You cannot talk about unions online effectively, Americans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes and pro-business rhetoric. Reminds me of Israel-Palestine in that regard, as soon as the topic comes up things get "strange." When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much. In particular why poorer Americans hate them, which is an affront to their own self interests.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ci5er 10y ago
My (limited) experience with unions in Germany and my (also, fortunately, limited) experience with unions in the US were far different. From that (limited/anecdotal) experience, I'd say that unions in Germany were a far better thing than what I saw in the US. It might just be that you are from a place where the origin, organizational principles, incentives and co-dependent relationship with select politicians are "better" than they are in the US.
masklinn 10y ago
> I guess that massive corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working. And if anyone doubts the anti-union bend of Amazon in particular, just look at their behaviour in Germany, where much of labour law, worker's rights and the work environment in general are based on cooperation between trade unions and private companies (and has been since the March Revolution of 1848).
yeureka 10y ago
Who needs unions when you have to wear diapers to keep your job? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/poultry-workers-in-diapers-as-bathroom-breaks-denied-oxfam-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/poultry-wo...
- bduerst 10y ago
  >Americans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes
  - hunterjrj 10y ago
    I suspect you missed the sarcasm in the parent post.
- ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
  Or are forced to donate your liver to your boss? http://time.com/money/4317132/boss-wants-liver-donor-for-brother/ http://time.com/money/4317132/boss-wants-liver-donor-for-bro...
wott 10y ago
> When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much. Perhaps because the borders between US unions/syndicates/mafia were thin? > In particular why poorer Americans hate them, which is an affront to their own self interests. That's a classical problem with Lumpen.
cmrdporcupine 10y ago
It doesn't help that the mainstream union movement in North America has had a history of some corruption and some politically dubious practices. Teamsters mob connections, AFL-CIO deep integration into the cold war era establishment, etc. And most people in North America now experience unionized employees mostly in the form of public sector union employees, which is a rather contradictory situation in that as a 'taxpayer' one is also nominally the 'employer' of public sector employees, and the right has done a great job of positioning the public sector against the population as a whole. If you want to unleash a torrent of vitriol that you'd normally only hear from a virulent right winger, bring up teacher's unions in any professional/middle-class workplace here in Ontario. I always find it amazing to hear my coworkers who make six figures moving around letters on a screen and eating catered gourmet lunches in the company cafe go on a screed about the amazingly overpaid people who teach their kids, deliver their mail, or pick up their garbage...
- aianus 10y ago
  Presumably if these six figure office workers weren't producing more value than their salary they would be fired and that would be that. Not so for the publicly unionized teachers that make the same money and never get fired regardless of if they're lazy negligent idiots or if they're dedicated molders of young minds. It's completely unfair.
  - hdctambien 10y ago
    When teacher's don't have a union the administration can add uncompensated hours to their work week, assign them uncompensated duties, assign them extra class loads (teach two classes at the same time) and fire the best teachers because they challenge an administrators idea of what good teaching look like.
    - aianus 10y ago
      Those things are true for all white collar exempt salaried employees, including most employees on this site. Why shouldn't teachers be treated the same way?
lr4444lr 10y ago
> I guess that massive corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working. Yeah, it could never be possible that the workers thought for themselves and just weren't interested in the terms.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Which union were you a part of that you disagreed with? Or are you just projecting your opinion?
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  I was referring to the general American public's dislike of union and union ideas. Sure, it sucks that Amazon's Warehouse, has been unable to start a union thus far. But the article sets out several reasons for that including strategic turnover.
- vidarh 10y ago
  That may explain why they're not interested in one specific union. It doesn't explain why they haven't joined another, or started their own.
JetSetWilly 10y ago
Unions can vary considerably, and depend strongly on local culture. I'm fairly familiar with the UK, but unions here famously had a very antagonistic relationship with the business, in contrast to unions in, say, Germany. There was a famous case, where Toyota (or some company like that) set up two identical car factories, one in Northern England and one in Germany. The one in Germany had vastly higher output per worker than the one in England, and a lot of the reason was down to the wildly different attitudes of the workers and the union - the one in England tended to put "tools down" for all kinds of silly bureaucratic reasons. And certainly in other parts of the country and other industries - Clydeside ship building, say - unions were not blameless in helping along their decline - although the incompetence of management and the business helped there as well.
- _delirium 10y ago
  Some of this varies on both sides as well; employers in Germany are also more consensus-oriented than those in the UK, willing to consult unions ahead of time on important decisions, have joint labor-management committees to oversee things, etc. The employers in Scandinavia even moreso, where running the workplace is almost seen as a complete partnership between the employer and the unions, who both approach it in a consensus-oriented way and don't like to make changes without the other side's buy-in. I suspect Amazon's quite antagonistic relationship with its German unions is in part because it doesn't take a very "German" approach to them as an employer, and tries to run things in a more American-style way instead. Although German employers are not quite as consensus-oriented nowadays than they were in the 1950s-1990s period either.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - coredog64 10y ago
    You're also missing out on the legal landscape. I can't recall the case, but back in the 50s (or maybe the 60s, I'm too lazy to go look it up), there was a supreme court decision that said that American unions have to support with full vigor the claims of every member. Before that point, management and unions could agree that certain people were just knuckleheads without any chance of redemption. After that point, management and unions had a decidedly more antagonistic relationship. IIRC (and again, too lazy to look this up), it was a PoC that brought the suit because many unions were automatically inclined to agree with management that a PoC was a knucklehead.
lumberjack 10y ago
>You cannot talk about unions online effectively You should not take what you see online as a reflection of the real political and economic thought of the people in real life.
dkopi 10y ago
"When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business" That's rarely the case with unions however. They usually work for the interests of a select few. They harm the business, they lobby government for special benefits and protections, and they're often willing to harm employees at the bottom of the ladder (or unemployed people who are never allowed on the ladder) to benefit employees on the top and closest to the union leaders.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  I understand what the Chamber of Commerce thinks, but do you have any references, or any information independent of them? And by this, I don't mean a reference to the existence of a bad union or a bad union incident, or stories about how your dad told you that every meeting was a bunch of blind drunks voting down training and making up new holidays. You're making a claim of prevalence, it'd be interesting to know where you got that opinion from.
  - dkopi 10y ago
    While that was a fairly aggressive way of commenting, I'll still answer for the sake of other people reading this. Here's an example of how social workers in Israel were let down by the Histadrut - Israel's organization of trade unions. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Social-workers-feel-let-down-by-minister-Histadrut http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Social-workers-feel-let-d... Social workers are some of the lowest paid government workers in Israel, and they always participate in general strikes when requested by the Histadrut. They've helped secure higher salaries for bank unions, airport unions, electric unions and port worker unions. But when it was there turn to strike (After decades of stagnant income), they were thrown under the bus, with the Histadrut negotiating a deal that didn't even offer a raise that would cover the lost income. Leader of the Israeli Labor Party (Closely tied with the union leaders) Shelly Yachimovich even put out a public letter calling on social workers to end their strike. Effectively taking away any bargaining power they had left. (Hebrew link, couldn't find coverage in English): http://www.blacklabor.org/?p=29042 http://www.blacklabor.org/?p=29042
pc86 10y ago
> When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much. Probably because most Americans (myself included) have never encountered a union that works for both the employees and the business. My working-class father, twice, was working for a union and was forced to stop working for strikes, unpaid. My parents nearly lost their house when I was in elementary school because of it. One of those times the company actually shut down. > You cannot talk about unions online effectively, Americans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes and pro-business rhetoric. Obviously America is more pro-business than most of Europe. But it seems odd that you define talking about something "effectively" and not being challenged on your opinions. I would argue it's hard (not impossible) to talk about unions online effectively because Europeans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes and statements like a poor person disliking unions is inherently against their own self interest.
- revscat 10y ago
  I worked for UPS before going to college. It was a strong union shop, and I have decidedly different memories of it. When I slipped on a set of stairs and hurt my head, my manager immediately rushed me to the doctor and gave me the day off. The pay was good for an 18 year old without a degree, and I had full health/401k.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    There are many non-union shops that would have done the same thing after your fall. In fact, I'd wager to say almost all of them with more than a handful of employees. (Mom and Pop places may have you "walk it off", but beyond that, through a combination of genuine concern for employees and HR/Safety policies, you'd be attended to.)
    - programminggeek 10y ago
      Oh there are many many non union shops that would NOT do the same thing and many places wouldn't offer health insurance or 401k at all.
dmm 10y ago
My father was a sheet metal worker for many years. He always described the union meetings as a bunch of drunk* old men voting down any spending on training, something that would generally benefit younger men. Even while the pension fund is underfunded and highly dependent on younger men to pay into it. My only direct experience with a union was when I was working for a federal govt agency. This org was steadily shrinking over the years as automated systems replaced what was once a highly labor intensive process. The leaders of the org worked hard to find a place for the techs who were slowly being displaced, literally offering them paid schooling and training programs. Those who didn't pursue these offers began to feel threatened and voted to join a union of federal employees. My wife is a teacher. The teachers union exists solely to protect teachers. She has colleagues who are terrible at their job, doing things like failing to teach math for six months. The principals of the school look into firing them and are told by HR it takes seven years to fire anyone. This is in an environment where education colleges are pumping out tons of enthusiastic fresh meat every year. Teachers unions protect the negligent and harm the young. Does this help you to understand why I am skeptical of unions? * Literally drunk. The meetings were in the evenings so working people could attend them. Men would get off work, start drinking and go to the meetings three hours later.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  This is the argument I can't solve. With union = No merit based pay. Protection for the incompetent. Worst and best teacher make identical pay, and both are near impossible to fire. Without union = race to the bottom. Where a union car assembly plant may pay workers $25 an hour, a non-union plant pays workers $10 an hour. We can't as a nation survive with so many jobs paying $10 an hour or less. So what is the actual right path? How do you get fair pay for all workers, but not promote and protect the lazy and the incompetent?
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Without caricaturing the position of bosses and unions, and constant good faith consultation and negotiation between them. And, honestly, a larger percentage of profits and productivity gains going to workers, instead of owners. If you haven't noticed, neither unions nor workers are winning; see Piketty.
mattmcknight 10y ago
"In particular why poorer Americans hate them, which is an affront to their own self interests." Except, it's not always an affront to their self interest. Unions increase wages for their members, not people who aren't in unions. This then tends to increase the cost of the goods they provide. Unions tend to reduce overall employment, favoring the already employed over the unemployed. They reduce job flexibility, as benefits are often tied to long term attachment to a single company. Unions make the companies more vulnerable to outsourcing. Finally, the public employee unions in the US have conspired with politicians to enact defined benefit pensions that are bankrupting many localities- a problem of short term thinking. Unions essentially create a government sponsored monopoly on labor supply, restricting both workers and companies, which is fundamentally in conflict with the values of economic liberty upon which the country was founded.
- germanier 10y ago
  This all depends on where you are. German employers commonly extend the agreements to the non-unionized to keep people from joining the union for this reason alone.
- madgar 10y ago
  > Unions essentially create a government sponsored monopoly on labor supply, restricting both workers and companies, which is fundamentally in conflict with the values of economic liberty upon which the country was founded. Literally every word of what you just said about abolishing slavery. Even the bit about restricting workers, because poor landowners were told that owning a slave would enable upward mobility (it didn't really, slavery was a money sink at such small scales, this was just rhetoric to keep poor whites from questioning slavery). Our country's history of valuing economic liberty has typically made us tolerate some awful behavior by the economically powerful. I wouldn't put it on a pedestal.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Is there a Godwin's law for slavery? Just because Argument A can be used (improperly, perhaps?) to defend Bad Thing, and Argument A can also be used to defend Questioned Thing, does not make Questioned Thing equivalent to Bad Thing. So rather than saying "yeah but slavery!" perhaps try actually refuting the points made.
acomjean 10y ago
I did construction inspections for landfill sites. I will say the Union Shops felt much better run, with fewer accident (its anecdotal I know, but when construction equipment flips, and you start to wonder how much training the guy on the backhoe has, not a question on Union sites, you know) Union Wages are very good in NY. The migratory non-uinion crews that did liner install where quite happy getting the union wages that were required on the site. There were a few people (equipment operators) that definitely used the union for cover and would just disappear at noon exactly for lunch, no matter what was going on, actually causing more work. When he was let go, he was at the gate watching to make sure nobody used the same equipment for a week (A rule to prevent short term layoffs and rehires). Mostly pretty hard working people, doing physical labor, stuff you wouldn't want to do after 50. The laborers had training on site sometime, to keep skills up.
specialist 10y ago
"...it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much." Collective bargaining requires some kind of union. It's just game theory. "... individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to "free ride" on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public goods. Individuals will not “free ride” in groups that provide benefits only to active participants." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action I leave it others smarter than me to explain the "strange", tortured, counter-factual, misanthropic rationalizations of the anti-union rhetoric.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ci5er 10y ago

My (limited) experience with unions in Germany and my (also, fortunately, limited) experience with unions in the US were far different. From that (limited/anecdotal) experience, I'd say that unions in Germany were a far better thing than what I saw in the US. It might just be that you are from a place where the origin, organizational principles, incentives and co-dependent relationship with select politicians are "better" than they are in the US.

masklinn 10y ago

> I guess that massive corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working. And if anyone doubts the anti-union bend of Amazon in particular, just look at their behaviour in Germany, where much of labour law, worker's rights and the work environment in general are based on cooperation between trade unions and private companies (and has been since the March Revolution of 1848).

yeureka 10y ago

Who needs unions when you have to wear diapers to keep your job? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/poultry-workers-in-diapers-as-bathroom-breaks-denied-oxfam-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/poultry-wo...

bduerst 10y ago
>Americans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes
- hunterjrj 10y ago
  I suspect you missed the sarcasm in the parent post.
ComteDeLaFere 10y ago
Or are forced to donate your liver to your boss? http://time.com/money/4317132/boss-wants-liver-donor-for-brother/ http://time.com/money/4317132/boss-wants-liver-donor-for-bro...

wott 10y ago

> When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much. Perhaps because the borders between US unions/syndicates/mafia were thin? > In particular why poorer Americans hate them, which is an affront to their own self interests. That's a classical problem with Lumpen.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago

It doesn't help that the mainstream union movement in North America has had a history of some corruption and some politically dubious practices. Teamsters mob connections, AFL-CIO deep integration into the cold war era establishment, etc. And most people in North America now experience unionized employees mostly in the form of public sector union employees, which is a rather contradictory situation in that as a 'taxpayer' one is also nominally the 'employer' of public sector employees, and the right has done a great job of positioning the public sector against the population as a whole. If you want to unleash a torrent of vitriol that you'd normally only hear from a virulent right winger, bring up teacher's unions in any professional/middle-class workplace here in Ontario. I always find it amazing to hear my coworkers who make six figures moving around letters on a screen and eating catered gourmet lunches in the company cafe go on a screed about the amazingly overpaid people who teach their kids, deliver their mail, or pick up their garbage...

aianus 10y ago
Presumably if these six figure office workers weren't producing more value than their salary they would be fired and that would be that. Not so for the publicly unionized teachers that make the same money and never get fired regardless of if they're lazy negligent idiots or if they're dedicated molders of young minds. It's completely unfair.
- hdctambien 10y ago
  When teacher's don't have a union the administration can add uncompensated hours to their work week, assign them uncompensated duties, assign them extra class loads (teach two classes at the same time) and fire the best teachers because they challenge an administrators idea of what good teaching look like.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Those things are true for all white collar exempt salaried employees, including most employees on this site. Why shouldn't teachers be treated the same way?

lr4444lr 10y ago

> I guess that massive corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working. Yeah, it could never be possible that the workers thought for themselves and just weren't interested in the terms.

bduerst 10y ago
Which union were you a part of that you disagreed with? Or are you just projecting your opinion?
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
I was referring to the general American public's dislike of union and union ideas. Sure, it sucks that Amazon's Warehouse, has been unable to start a union thus far. But the article sets out several reasons for that including strategic turnover.
vidarh 10y ago
That may explain why they're not interested in one specific union. It doesn't explain why they haven't joined another, or started their own.

JetSetWilly 10y ago

Unions can vary considerably, and depend strongly on local culture. I'm fairly familiar with the UK, but unions here famously had a very antagonistic relationship with the business, in contrast to unions in, say, Germany. There was a famous case, where Toyota (or some company like that) set up two identical car factories, one in Northern England and one in Germany. The one in Germany had vastly higher output per worker than the one in England, and a lot of the reason was down to the wildly different attitudes of the workers and the union - the one in England tended to put "tools down" for all kinds of silly bureaucratic reasons. And certainly in other parts of the country and other industries - Clydeside ship building, say - unions were not blameless in helping along their decline - although the incompetence of management and the business helped there as well.

_delirium 10y ago
Some of this varies on both sides as well; employers in Germany are also more consensus-oriented than those in the UK, willing to consult unions ahead of time on important decisions, have joint labor-management committees to oversee things, etc. The employers in Scandinavia even moreso, where running the workplace is almost seen as a complete partnership between the employer and the unions, who both approach it in a consensus-oriented way and don't like to make changes without the other side's buy-in. I suspect Amazon's quite antagonistic relationship with its German unions is in part because it doesn't take a very "German" approach to them as an employer, and tries to run things in a more American-style way instead. Although German employers are not quite as consensus-oriented nowadays than they were in the 1950s-1990s period either.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- coredog64 10y ago
  You're also missing out on the legal landscape. I can't recall the case, but back in the 50s (or maybe the 60s, I'm too lazy to go look it up), there was a supreme court decision that said that American unions have to support with full vigor the claims of every member. Before that point, management and unions could agree that certain people were just knuckleheads without any chance of redemption. After that point, management and unions had a decidedly more antagonistic relationship. IIRC (and again, too lazy to look this up), it was a PoC that brought the suit because many unions were automatically inclined to agree with management that a PoC was a knucklehead.

lumberjack 10y ago

>You cannot talk about unions online effectively You should not take what you see online as a reflection of the real political and economic thought of the people in real life.

dkopi 10y ago

"When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business" That's rarely the case with unions however. They usually work for the interests of a select few. They harm the business, they lobby government for special benefits and protections, and they're often willing to harm employees at the bottom of the ladder (or unemployed people who are never allowed on the ladder) to benefit employees on the top and closest to the union leaders.

pessimizer 10y ago
I understand what the Chamber of Commerce thinks, but do you have any references, or any information independent of them? And by this, I don't mean a reference to the existence of a bad union or a bad union incident, or stories about how your dad told you that every meeting was a bunch of blind drunks voting down training and making up new holidays. You're making a claim of prevalence, it'd be interesting to know where you got that opinion from.
- dkopi 10y ago
  While that was a fairly aggressive way of commenting, I'll still answer for the sake of other people reading this. Here's an example of how social workers in Israel were let down by the Histadrut - Israel's organization of trade unions. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Social-workers-feel-let-down-by-minister-Histadrut http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Social-workers-feel-let-d... Social workers are some of the lowest paid government workers in Israel, and they always participate in general strikes when requested by the Histadrut. They've helped secure higher salaries for bank unions, airport unions, electric unions and port worker unions. But when it was there turn to strike (After decades of stagnant income), they were thrown under the bus, with the Histadrut negotiating a deal that didn't even offer a raise that would cover the lost income. Leader of the Israeli Labor Party (Closely tied with the union leaders) Shelly Yachimovich even put out a public letter calling on social workers to end their strike. Effectively taking away any bargaining power they had left. (Hebrew link, couldn't find coverage in English): http://www.blacklabor.org/?p=29042 http://www.blacklabor.org/?p=29042

pc86 10y ago

> When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much. Probably because most Americans (myself included) have never encountered a union that works for both the employees and the business. My working-class father, twice, was working for a union and was forced to stop working for strikes, unpaid. My parents nearly lost their house when I was in elementary school because of it. One of those times the company actually shut down. > You cannot talk about unions online effectively, Americans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes and pro-business rhetoric. Obviously America is more pro-business than most of Europe. But it seems odd that you define talking about something "effectively" and not being challenged on your opinions. I would argue it's hard (not impossible) to talk about unions online effectively because Europeans come out of the woodwork with super strange anecdotes and statements like a poor person disliking unions is inherently against their own self interest.

revscat 10y ago
I worked for UPS before going to college. It was a strong union shop, and I have decidedly different memories of it. When I slipped on a set of stairs and hurt my head, my manager immediately rushed me to the doctor and gave me the day off. The pay was good for an 18 year old without a degree, and I had full health/401k.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  There are many non-union shops that would have done the same thing after your fall. In fact, I'd wager to say almost all of them with more than a handful of employees. (Mom and Pop places may have you "walk it off", but beyond that, through a combination of genuine concern for employees and HR/Safety policies, you'd be attended to.)
  - programminggeek 10y ago
    Oh there are many many non union shops that would NOT do the same thing and many places wouldn't offer health insurance or 401k at all.

dmm 10y ago

My father was a sheet metal worker for many years. He always described the union meetings as a bunch of drunk* old men voting down any spending on training, something that would generally benefit younger men. Even while the pension fund is underfunded and highly dependent on younger men to pay into it. My only direct experience with a union was when I was working for a federal govt agency. This org was steadily shrinking over the years as automated systems replaced what was once a highly labor intensive process. The leaders of the org worked hard to find a place for the techs who were slowly being displaced, literally offering them paid schooling and training programs. Those who didn't pursue these offers began to feel threatened and voted to join a union of federal employees. My wife is a teacher. The teachers union exists solely to protect teachers. She has colleagues who are terrible at their job, doing things like failing to teach math for six months. The principals of the school look into firing them and are told by HR it takes seven years to fire anyone. This is in an environment where education colleges are pumping out tons of enthusiastic fresh meat every year. Teachers unions protect the negligent and harm the young. Does this help you to understand why I am skeptical of unions? * Literally drunk. The meetings were in the evenings so working people could attend them. Men would get off work, start drinking and go to the meetings three hours later.

brianwawok 10y ago
This is the argument I can't solve. With union = No merit based pay. Protection for the incompetent. Worst and best teacher make identical pay, and both are near impossible to fire. Without union = race to the bottom. Where a union car assembly plant may pay workers $25 an hour, a non-union plant pays workers $10 an hour. We can't as a nation survive with so many jobs paying $10 an hour or less. So what is the actual right path? How do you get fair pay for all workers, but not promote and protect the lazy and the incompetent?
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Without caricaturing the position of bosses and unions, and constant good faith consultation and negotiation between them. And, honestly, a larger percentage of profits and productivity gains going to workers, instead of owners. If you haven't noticed, neither unions nor workers are winning; see Piketty.

mattmcknight 10y ago

"In particular why poorer Americans hate them, which is an affront to their own self interests." Except, it's not always an affront to their self interest. Unions increase wages for their members, not people who aren't in unions. This then tends to increase the cost of the goods they provide. Unions tend to reduce overall employment, favoring the already employed over the unemployed. They reduce job flexibility, as benefits are often tied to long term attachment to a single company. Unions make the companies more vulnerable to outsourcing. Finally, the public employee unions in the US have conspired with politicians to enact defined benefit pensions that are bankrupting many localities- a problem of short term thinking. Unions essentially create a government sponsored monopoly on labor supply, restricting both workers and companies, which is fundamentally in conflict with the values of economic liberty upon which the country was founded.

germanier 10y ago
This all depends on where you are. German employers commonly extend the agreements to the non-unionized to keep people from joining the union for this reason alone.
madgar 10y ago
> Unions essentially create a government sponsored monopoly on labor supply, restricting both workers and companies, which is fundamentally in conflict with the values of economic liberty upon which the country was founded. Literally every word of what you just said about abolishing slavery. Even the bit about restricting workers, because poor landowners were told that owning a slave would enable upward mobility (it didn't really, slavery was a money sink at such small scales, this was just rhetoric to keep poor whites from questioning slavery). Our country's history of valuing economic liberty has typically made us tolerate some awful behavior by the economically powerful. I wouldn't put it on a pedestal.
- pc86 10y ago
  Is there a Godwin's law for slavery? Just because Argument A can be used (improperly, perhaps?) to defend Bad Thing, and Argument A can also be used to defend Questioned Thing, does not make Questioned Thing equivalent to Bad Thing. So rather than saying "yeah but slavery!" perhaps try actually refuting the points made.

acomjean 10y ago

I did construction inspections for landfill sites. I will say the Union Shops felt much better run, with fewer accident (its anecdotal I know, but when construction equipment flips, and you start to wonder how much training the guy on the backhoe has, not a question on Union sites, you know) Union Wages are very good in NY. The migratory non-uinion crews that did liner install where quite happy getting the union wages that were required on the site. There were a few people (equipment operators) that definitely used the union for cover and would just disappear at noon exactly for lunch, no matter what was going on, actually causing more work. When he was let go, he was at the gate watching to make sure nobody used the same equipment for a week (A rule to prevent short term layoffs and rehires). Mostly pretty hard working people, doing physical labor, stuff you wouldn't want to do after 50. The laborers had training on site sometime, to keep skills up.

specialist 10y ago

"...it is hard to see why Americans hate them so much." Collective bargaining requires some kind of union. It's just game theory. "... individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to "free ride" on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public goods. Individuals will not “free ride” in groups that provide benefits only to active participants." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action I leave it others smarter than me to explain the "strange", tortured, counter-factual, misanthropic rationalizations of the anti-union rhetoric.