3 ms·

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 o

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.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > After [the 60s] management and unions had a decidedly more antagonistic relationship. Union antagonism is very much cultural[0], and the US didn't wait until the 60s for that to happen, late 19th/early 20th century US management didn't shy from violently repressing strikes and busting unions, Pinkerton was often hired in that capacity and industrialists with enough clout could get the police or even the army involved (as in Blair Mountain or Ludlow) According to "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome", as of 1969 the US had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of the first world. [0] the UK and France both have very antagonistic labor relationships for instance

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.

masklinn 10y ago
> After [the 60s] management and unions had a decidedly more antagonistic relationship. Union antagonism is very much cultural[0], and the US didn't wait until the 60s for that to happen, late 19th/early 20th century US management didn't shy from violently repressing strikes and busting unions, Pinkerton was often hired in that capacity and industrialists with enough clout could get the police or even the army involved (as in Blair Mountain or Ludlow) According to "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome", as of 1969 the US had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of the first world. [0] the UK and France both have very antagonistic labor relationships for instance