4 ms·

I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best: "Socialism never took root in Ameri

I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Another quote I've heard is that "extremists become more extreme, not less, as problems come closer to solutions." "Socialism" and "extremists" don't really apply but the sentiments do. Unions sprang up in the United States as a counterweight to outright and absolute worker abuse. Things we--those resident in the U.S.--now take as "absolute," like child labor laws and the 40-hour workweek, were earned as a result of those early struggles. We've had it really good here for really long, comparatively, so I think that a lot of people see these kinds of abuses as "won't happen to me"-ism so they're not interested in sacrificing even a little to ensure that the abuses happen to virtually[0] no one. Going back to unions, a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing because jobs, salaries, and opportunities are all plentiful. We're not "abused" because employers know that we can just hop jobs and recover. (Never mind things like the gaming industry or the "crunch" period or, say, Uber.) Because of the illusion of choice, unions aren't valued. (I say "illusion" because witness what happened in the doldrums of the early 2000s. When every employer, or even a bunch of large employers, pull back at the same time, there is no choice.) For others, things like unions or some form of collective action or even just "group health care run by the government" are seen as impinging on the basic rights to shoot--metaphor intentionally chosen--our own feet off however we like, consequences be damned because other countries are just wrong and the United States is a Special Snowflake. Or something like that but maybe with a little less bite. 0 - I say virtually because people will always find a way to take advantage of others but there's a lot to be said for pushing to prevent that as much as possible. America doesn't seem to do that very much.

pdkl95 10y ago
> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover something, then leave it out. Charter the union to only address the specific problems that need to be addressed. Maybe limit "crunch" periods to healthy lengths of time near an actual product release? Maybe include a specific deterrent against extreme problems like collusion to fix salaries while otherwise ignoring salary completely? As for dues and management costs, isn't that the kind of problem that is easy with modern computers and telecommunication? How much management is even needed for an IT union? In the past dues were needed to hire people to do the paperwork, send out notices, etc. Today, that work is a weekend Ruby On Rails project. After a specific purpose union is setup, are dues even necessary?
- icebraining 10y ago
  It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. Organizations aren't created in a vacuum, they require bringing in others, and if you're starting an union, you'll attract people who are already predisposed to all the ideas of what makes up a union, and you'll attract offers of help from existing unions, which will try to co-opt you. And there's no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process. Finally, once that it created, it's not just a matter of distancing yourself; once a union grows, it affects every worker, even non-unionized - in some cases, even banning them outright from working. So it's not surprising that workers which still have it pretty good aren't interest in opening that can of worms, and you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. To add to everything you just said, the NLRA sets very rigid rules regarding how unions can form and how employees and employers can interact with them. So you can't just charter it however you want and assume all the problems are solved - the NLRA imposes a number of requirements and protections for the union (not the members, but the union itself as a corporate structure) which way be at odds with the employees. As a result, once a union forms, it's very difficult (practically) for its members to deunionize, even if a majority of the membership opposes the union representing them. So people are very hesitant to go down a road which is essentially seen as a one-way street, except as a last resort.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process People aren't interested in small-scale organizing for specific purposes because strong, traditional unions are too popular? Why aren't the same people you claim will "control [the] process" making a union now? Yes, just like every other type of organization, a union - or business - can evolve beyond it's original purpose. There are no guarantees in most collective actions. However, arguments that assume an inevitable strong union in industries where unions are very unpopular do not seem to be based in reality. > you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one The tech industry has been very successful at inventing new types of organizations over the last several decades. The "gig economy" and Bitcoin/Etherium are obvious examples. Silicon Valley is popular because of how easy it is to invent new businesses. Sometimes this creativity extends to new ways to fund startups. A lot of the tech itself revolves around new types of social interaction. I find it very hard to believe that unions - or collective bargaining in general - are somehow immune from "disruption" and creative reinterpretation.

pdkl95 10y ago

> a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing Usually this includes knee-jerk arguments against dues, mandated wages/salary, and other aspects of existing/older unions. It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. A union can be what you want it to be. If you don't want it to cover something, then leave it out. Charter the union to only address the specific problems that need to be addressed. Maybe limit "crunch" periods to healthy lengths of time near an actual product release? Maybe include a specific deterrent against extreme problems like collusion to fix salaries while otherwise ignoring salary completely? As for dues and management costs, isn't that the kind of problem that is easy with modern computers and telecommunication? How much management is even needed for an IT union? In the past dues were needed to hire people to do the paperwork, send out notices, etc. Today, that work is a weekend Ruby On Rails project. After a specific purpose union is setup, are dues even necessary?

icebraining 10y ago
It seems like many people implicit assume that a union must involve a list a of traditional practices. It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. Organizations aren't created in a vacuum, they require bringing in others, and if you're starting an union, you'll attract people who are already predisposed to all the ideas of what makes up a union, and you'll attract offers of help from existing unions, which will try to co-opt you. And there's no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process. Finally, once that it created, it's not just a matter of distancing yourself; once a union grows, it affects every worker, even non-unionized - in some cases, even banning them outright from working. So it's not surprising that workers which still have it pretty good aren't interest in opening that can of worms, and you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > It's not an assumption that it must, it's a recognition that very likely, it will. To add to everything you just said, the NLRA sets very rigid rules regarding how unions can form and how employees and employers can interact with them. So you can't just charter it however you want and assume all the problems are solved - the NLRA imposes a number of requirements and protections for the union (not the members, but the union itself as a corporate structure) which way be at odds with the employees. As a result, once a union forms, it's very difficult (practically) for its members to deunionize, even if a majority of the membership opposes the union representing them. So people are very hesitant to go down a road which is essentially seen as a one-way street, except as a last resort.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > no valid reason to believe that you'll be able to control that process People aren't interested in small-scale organizing for specific purposes because strong, traditional unions are too popular? Why aren't the same people you claim will "control [the] process" making a union now? Yes, just like every other type of organization, a union - or business - can evolve beyond it's original purpose. There are no guarantees in most collective actions. However, arguments that assume an inevitable strong union in industries where unions are very unpopular do not seem to be based in reality. > you must have a better reason to convince them why it won't be one The tech industry has been very successful at inventing new types of organizations over the last several decades. The "gig economy" and Bitcoin/Etherium are obvious examples. Silicon Valley is popular because of how easy it is to invent new businesses. Sometimes this creativity extends to new ways to fund startups. A lot of the tech itself revolves around new types of social interaction. I find it very hard to believe that unions - or collective bargaining in general - are somehow immune from "disruption" and creative reinterpretation.