4 ms·

I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly

by jahaja 10y ago

I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly exists between the US and Europe.

randomdata 10y ago
Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad. That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.
- jahaja 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify? Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact? Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - randomdata 10y ago
    Which part of the original comment did you not understand? Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part. Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.
    - jahaja 10y ago
      Do not assume I agree with you because I did not respond to something. Especially when I wrote that I did not understand your answer fully. You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. And that's excluding the factor of solidarity with your fellow workers. Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
      - judahmeek 10y ago
        randomdata basically pointed out that freedom isn't always in a person's best interests. The two of you are certainly using different definitions of fairness as well. randomdata's definition seems to have more to do with lack of third party involvement/regulation of the negotiation while you focus on the exchange of time & effort vs financial compensation.
      - randomdata 10y ago
        > For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve. When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay, willing to take greater risks in dangerous jobs, and so on. Again, a union takes away their freedom to do those things, and takes away the fairness that treats everyone in the same way, so that everyone else doesn't feel like they also have to do those things. > Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live. There is another freedom lost. Do you still not see how freedom is a bad thing here? Surely you agree that not being able to fire people for being in a union is a good thing, even though it comes at the cost of less freedom? > I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. Possibly. Are you an American by chance? It get the impression they place such high value on freedom and fairness that anything else they like must also be free and fair, without even taking the time to think about what that actually means. I see several comments here where people are getting upset at the idea that unions aren't free or fair, even though there is no reason to be. It is perfectly okay to not always be completely free or fair.
- manicdee 10y ago
  How does a union take away fair compensation and room for negotiation?
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > How does a union take away fair compensation Fair compensation is the result of many actors all competing in a market without restriction. This is often bad, as when competition is fierce, those many actors will drive down value to almost nothing, leaving low pay, willingness to do dangerous acts, etc. The union improves on fair compensation by setting terms that the people must follow. No longer fair, but a much better situation for employees. > room for negotiation You can always try it out for yourself. Find a unionized job, sell yourself to the bosses, and then clinch it with a sweetheart offer of $10/hr less than everyone else is being paid. See how far you get and report back to us. Something tells me you'll soon realize that your negotiating room is gone. And that's a good thing!
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  In many situations, without a union, there is no room for negotiation. This is the way it is with Walmart. You are afforded no freedom or fairness in that situation, just what Walmart wants to offer you. Fair implies room for compromise or a lack of unequal advantage from both parties. In this case, Walmart has all the say in how your employment is handled. A fair fight assumes that participants are on an equal footing. If Walmart shows up with a tank and you've got your bare hands, that isn't fair. This is what I mean by fair. Fairer compensation can be ascertained by both parties through a fairer negotiation. Unions raise the minimum standards for negotiations and conditions, whether you are a member or not. Many unions allow for up-negotiation or work within a pay scale. Walmart has a scale too, so does your employer, except neither bottom out. Ask for compensation above the top bound of that scale and you will be laughed out of the room. A union forces an employer to raise the bottom for up-negotiation or a pay scale and negotiate for a higher top bound. Bonuses exist outside of the scale. I cannot come to the same conclusion as you with regards to unions taking away fair compensation and room for negotiation for those reasons.

by jahaja 10y ago

I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly exists between the US and Europe.

randomdata 10y ago

Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad. That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.

jahaja 10y ago
I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify? Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact? Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- randomdata 10y ago
  Which part of the original comment did you not understand? Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part. Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom. But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.
  - jahaja 10y ago
    Do not assume I agree with you because I did not respond to something. Especially when I wrote that I did not understand your answer fully. You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. And that's excluding the factor of solidarity with your fellow workers. Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live.
    - judahmeek 10y ago
      randomdata basically pointed out that freedom isn't always in a person's best interests. The two of you are certainly using different definitions of fairness as well. randomdata's definition seems to have more to do with lack of third party involvement/regulation of the negotiation while you focus on the exchange of time & effort vs financial compensation.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      > For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve. When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay, willing to take greater risks in dangerous jobs, and so on. Again, a union takes away their freedom to do those things, and takes away the fairness that treats everyone in the same way, so that everyone else doesn't feel like they also have to do those things. > Furthermore, firing people for being in an union is blatantly illegal where I live. There is another freedom lost. Do you still not see how freedom is a bad thing here? Surely you agree that not being able to fire people for being in a union is a good thing, even though it comes at the cost of less freedom? > I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. Possibly. Are you an American by chance? It get the impression they place such high value on freedom and fairness that anything else they like must also be free and fair, without even taking the time to think about what that actually means. I see several comments here where people are getting upset at the idea that unions aren't free or fair, even though there is no reason to be. It is perfectly okay to not always be completely free or fair.
manicdee 10y ago
How does a union take away fair compensation and room for negotiation?
- randomdata 10y ago
  > How does a union take away fair compensation Fair compensation is the result of many actors all competing in a market without restriction. This is often bad, as when competition is fierce, those many actors will drive down value to almost nothing, leaving low pay, willingness to do dangerous acts, etc. The union improves on fair compensation by setting terms that the people must follow. No longer fair, but a much better situation for employees. > room for negotiation You can always try it out for yourself. Find a unionized job, sell yourself to the bosses, and then clinch it with a sweetheart offer of $10/hr less than everyone else is being paid. See how far you get and report back to us. Something tells me you'll soon realize that your negotiating room is gone. And that's a good thing!
darpa_escapee 10y ago
In many situations, without a union, there is no room for negotiation. This is the way it is with Walmart. You are afforded no freedom or fairness in that situation, just what Walmart wants to offer you. Fair implies room for compromise or a lack of unequal advantage from both parties. In this case, Walmart has all the say in how your employment is handled. A fair fight assumes that participants are on an equal footing. If Walmart shows up with a tank and you've got your bare hands, that isn't fair. This is what I mean by fair. Fairer compensation can be ascertained by both parties through a fairer negotiation. Unions raise the minimum standards for negotiations and conditions, whether you are a member or not. Many unions allow for up-negotiation or work within a pay scale. Walmart has a scale too, so does your employer, except neither bottom out. Ask for compensation above the top bound of that scale and you will be laughed out of the room. A union forces an employer to raise the bottom for up-negotiation or a pay scale and negotiate for a higher top bound. Bonuses exist outside of the scale. I cannot come to the same conclusion as you with regards to unions taking away fair compensation and room for negotiation for those reasons.