7 ms·

I agree. As someone who only recently entered the workforce, I have noticed that people from the US seem to have a particular tendancy to dislike unions whereas

I agree. As someone who only recently entered the workforce, I have noticed that people from the US seem to have a particular tendancy to dislike unions whereas here in the UK they are often seen as a good thing. Anyone have any thoughts as to why?

wavefunction 10y ago
The US population has been under a sustained propaganda campaign for several decades intended to promote a hyper-capitalist/libertarian agenda that serves the interests of a very small number of people. The media in the US promotes this message, both because its members have themselves been awash in the propaganda their whole lives and also because the media organs in this country are largely corporate. Combine that with a general disinterest in critical thinking that has also been "encouraged" by those same cynical forces described above to ensure that they have an uneducated, incurious population that believes what they want. So now you can see why income inequality is growing in the US.
- mhneu 10y ago
  Right. This disinformation campaign gathered steam in the 1970s. The Powell Memorandum is a decent marker of the beginning of this modern corporate political movement. Here's a place to start reading. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-cor...
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  It's just like the "Japan has no housing regulations and it's better". It's not; the homes are small, cheaply made and over priced compared to anything in the west! The only places where housing is priced at a sensible level are those countries that the government build high quality local housing that the market has to produce better housing than to compete.
  - Jabanga 10y ago
    Please, for the love of God, learn about the US home building industry and about the construction industry in general. Nothing you said even approaches the truth, except for old Japanese housing (new Japanese housing is much better than the old stock) being of lower quality than US housing.
    - andy_ppp 10y ago
      Interesting but let's look at rent prices to give us a guide shall we? In central Tokyo you can get a 300 square foot apartment for $1800 per month and in the Mission (probably the cheapest part of San Fran?) for something that small (it's the legal limit) it's about the same. The rest of Japan is more expensive than the US per square foot. You actually get less space usually in new Japanese housing if anything. And I maintain they are cheaply built compared to US property. It's very difficult to compare property across countries but this has been my experience and I think everyone living in Japan vs Western countries you seem to get larger better built buildings for your money.
      - Jabanga 10y ago
        Japan is more land constrained than the US. That's why rent is higher. It has a much less developed construction tradition than the US, which inherited its construction technology from Europe. More importantly Japan focused much less on durable constuction during the Middle Ages, and instead focused on building types that could be quickly repaired and rebuilt. That tradition carried over to the present, while the US benefited from the European building tradition of more durable construction.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Japan is also not that big of an island.
- Jabanga 10y ago
  It's ironic that the US population has continuously voted to increases social welfare spending since the 1970s. Thanks to all of this socialism, the US now has lower labour productivity growth than anytime in the past century.
  - Synaesthesia 10y ago
    Except for Reagan and Clinton's welfare cuts - and productivity has far outpaced the wages which workers have earned since the 70's.
    - Jabanga 10y ago
      In the aggregate, there has been a huge increase in social welfare spending. I can show you the raw, inflation-adjusted statistics if you wish. What this means is that social welfare expansions have far outsized the cuts. >productivity has far outpaced the wages which workers have earned since the 70's. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where... >Almost all the benefits of economic growth since [the 1970s] have gone to a small number of people at the very top. —Robert Reich, Financial Times, Jan. 29, 2008 >Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners. —Robert H. Frank, New York Times, March 9, 2008 >The modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population. —David Leonhardt, New York Times, April 9, 2008 ... >These statistics appear quite compelling, but hiding in the background are some key issues that might alter the story. Average household size declined substantially during the past 30 years, so household income is being spread across fewer people. The mix of household types—married versus single, young versus old—also changed considerably, so the “median household” in 2006 looks quite different from the “median household” in 1976. Finally, the measure of income used by the Census Bureau to compute household income excludes some rapidly growing sources of income. ... >Here is a preview of the key data issues that lead to the higher estimates of median household income growth. >The price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation, and thus understates income gains, relative to a preferred price index. >A changing mix of household types leads the overall median increase to understate the median increase of most household types. >The Census Bureau measure of household income understates income growth by excluding some rapidly growing sources of income. >The remaining difference between the 44 percent to 62 percent increase in median household incomes and the 80 percent increase in BEA personal income per person appears to be largely attributable to an increase in income inequality. The findings in this article are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. However, the findings here are not consistent with the view that the incomes of middle American households stagnated over the past 30 years. Income for most middle American households increased substantially. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...
- acdha 10y ago
  Cold War politics entered into the picture, too, since many labor activists were left of center and accusing them of being a communist beachfront was an easy political attack. One other complication: as with most parts of U.S. history, racism shows up at key points. Some unions have a history of racial discrimination – not least because factory owners tried to use African American workers to break strikes – but others, especially the government unions, were actually attacking race or sex-based discrimination, which didn't win them support among the more conservative workers. One thing I've noticed is a trend in who is portrayed as the “lazy union worker” in attacks, where they never show e.g. a white police officer in a negative context but routinely depict a public school teacher as someone unqualified who got the job by virtue of being female, minority, etc. One thing we're not short on are people who will act against their own personal interests if they think it'll hurt an undeserving other.
- true_religion 10y ago
  I think its fairly easy to criticise the actions of existing powerful unions, and postulate that the less relevant unions lost relevance exactly due to the same concerns and lack of monopoly protection. Teachers unions for instance are still very strong on a state-by-state basis, but are disliked because they continuously only promote public schools and do whatever they can do show disdain for private school teachers, and students. This 'us versus them' mentality doesn't endear them to parents who simply want the best education for their children and not necessarily a "public school". Additionally due to teacher's unions, demonstrably bad teachers are difficult to remove from their positions. Police unions act similarly, by closing ranks anytime there's a whiff of a corruption investigation and proposing measures that essentially make police officers a protected class when it comes to criminal investigations against them. It's no surprise that the general public isn't in favour of them. Unions historically can be favoured by the general population, when most people in the general pop are also members of unions themselves. Unions have an us versus them mentality that puts them at odds not only with management, but also with anyone who isn't a part of a union. They make allowances for and have political alliances with other unions, but don't really think about the public good. An example is that if Software Developers were all in a union, we'd probably work it out so that a garbage man's union strike doesn't affect us too badly, so that in the future when we go on strike, the garbage men won't suddenly find that the apps and software they depend on suddenly has zero support. Given this situation, software devs (of the union) would be 'okay' with the other union, but everyone outside of the union would be unhappy because they're left high and dry.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Symmetry 10y ago
A different legal environment leads to different outcomes. Mostly my personal interactions with unions involve not being allowed to plug in my computer because "That's a union job" and so losing a day of productivity waiting around for them. And then there's the actions of police unions in encouraging officer impunity.
aianus 10y ago
Because I don't want to work somewhere where my pay and likelihood to be laid off is determined almost entirely by my age.
gravypod 10y ago
> I agree. As someone who only recently entered the workforce, I have noticed that people from the US seem to have a particular tendancy to dislike unions whereas here in the UK they are often seen as a good thing. Anyone have any thoughts as to why? If you've ever worked with our seen some of the actions of unions I'm the US I'm sure you understand. They are often political and you can usually be barred from getting a job if you aren't Union. At one point in my life I considered doing lighting and stage work for theaters. After trying for some time, and impressing people with my spotlight work, they told me I'd have to join the union here in NJ and that could take years. I'd have to work for free till I got in! This was common here in NJ. The political side is worse. Let's say you're a Catholic and you work in a company. Your company forces you to work in the union. Then your union donates to pro-abortion charities. Is that fair? I don't think so. Then you have the biggest debate that should be raised about unions: how corrupted they are. Union dues are high and it's not because of the good service. The heads make a lot of money on the backs of some of the hardest working people in our country. You've got union bosses taking half a million pay check who is skimming from minimum wage factory workers. So that's why I think the average Joe hates the American union: they are rich, political, and will bar you from getting a job all while taking your money, pocketing it, and expecting you to thank them for the pleasure.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  > skimming from minimum wage factory workers No union factory worker in the US makes minimum wage.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  (Even for folks who believe this characterization of unions is wrong, this is a very valuable comment for describing how unions are perceived.)
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  The corporation you work for can be political and has unilateral control over whether you get a job. The corporation can make political contributions and lobby. Corporation C-level execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers. But the corporation is working (in practice) solely for the shareholders. It seems to me that Unions are no better/worse than the corporation except that their duty is to their members. In this way Unions don't need to be a paragon of virtue because they're a balance to corporate power (even if a bit of a greasy one).
psyc 10y ago
Any grassroots action that would threaten the interests of corporations, such as Walmart, is managed by propaganda. See gravypod's comment for how to give the impression that unions are bad.
MisterBastahrd 10y ago
Because (a) we've been enduring a stream of propaganda for decades now which promotes the idea that unions are for lazy people who use longevity of employment over talent or drive to get promoted, and (b) anyone who has been part of a union in the US knows that if you have to strike against any powerful company, then you may be without a paycheck for up to a month of two, which completely eliminates the value of being in a union in the first place for most people.
davexunit 10y ago
Many, many, many years of the wealthy telling working folks that unions are bad.
zeveb 10y ago
Because U.S. unions are the reason why unionised professions are so miserable. C.f. theatres, in which different people must take down a picture, carry a picture to a different part of the stage, put a nail in the wall, and hang the picture. C.f. prison guards, whose unions actively lobby for increased incarceration. C.f. public 'servants,' who are effectively unfireable. When unions strike, they attack those who go to work anyway. They are closely associated with the mob and racketeering. They are, from what I can tell, generally worse than the corporations they ostensibly protect workers from. I think it should be perfectly legal to organise, perfectly legal to collectively bargain and perfectly legal to strike — but it should also be perfectly legal to fire folks who strike, and perfectly legal to refuse to deal with a union. Also, public employees should be strictly forbidden to strike, or to collectively bargain. I do kinda wish that there were a non-adversarial way for employees to have a voice with their employers, but unions as they currently exist are not the right mechanism. Maybe employment contracts? There was a time in history when businesses were abusive enough that unions' outrageous actions were perhaps necessary, but that's simply no longer the case. Strikes and violence to overthrow paternalistic company town and unsafe mines? Maybe. Strikes and violence to ensure that teachers who browse porn in class don't get fired? Nope.
- wfo 10y ago
  The employer-employee relationship is almost always adversarial, we just don't notice it because the power is so imbalanced in favor of the employer and it's to their benefit to convince you it's not adversarial. The employer pays you the absolute minimum he can to extract the maximum amount of value out of you in return. If he could force you to work an extra day for free, he would. If he could force you to work unpaid overtime, he would. If he could force you to take a risk to your own health in order to work more quickly and make him more profit, he would. This is all inherent and necessary qualities of capitalism. We have checks to try to make this system palatable for human beings to exist within -- employers are liable for workplace injuries, you must be paid for your labor (unless you are salaried), and unions exist. Corporate interests are constantly trying to undermine every single check we have installed, and to prevent new ones. They must; it's their job, it will increase profits. Most complaints about unions essentially boil down to them being too powerful. But if the government isn't going to step in and be a check on corporate power, unions had better be powerful enough to do something about it. Tricking you into thinking this relationship is not adversarial is the greatest trick your adversary has ever pulled.
Shivetya 10y ago
depending on industry they may or not may not be good for you. a lot of the blame for the steel industry failing and in part the woes of the auto industry were blamed on unions demanding too much. they also are a reason many don't like the police because that union buries a lot. throw in that public service unions run up salaries and benefits of members who aren't in dangerous or unfairly compensate industries and regular working people get annoyed (countless stories about exceedingly high payouts for some retirees because of pension abuse and such all paid by taxes). Government unions tend to be the prime reason many dislike them because of the near immunity some members derive from such status lower income earners tend to not get as much benefit from the high cost of dues (based on percentage of income) versus some higher wage earners.
aurizon 10y ago
At the heart of the union mentality is the deep desire to advance their members at the expense of non-union members. As we have seen the full flower of this mind state has cost the US economy millions of jobs as the total cost of Auto jobs and by collateral influence many other jobs - whose work went to cheaper labor cost places. If we all were in the union and all wages were the same (with skill/education/risk/etc modifying premiums) this would be workable. As it now is China and India(to a lesser degree) can now sell finished goods into the USA for a lot less than they can be made in the USA. In an ideal world, currency changes and import duties would act to level this. Sadly this is not the case and various forces will make Chinese and Indian products take larger portions of our markets every year. The exception is big bulky/fluffy items, like mattresses and some furniture that is so bulky that freight costs act as a de-facto import duty. Now in Europe we have a far higher degree of unions than the USA, so there is not as big a wage spread across the workers, as we have in the USA. In the UK the unions got so far out of hand with greed etc that Thatcher was forced to act. I refer to strikes, work rules, featherbedding (Google it - union men who did zero work at all - but got paid because they used to have a job where they made an item for 8 hours, and the company eliminated the part completely - yet the whole factory went on strike to keep these men paid). As you can see the US and UK auto business pretty much died off in terms of the number of workers (compare the number of USA/UK Auto workers in 1960 to 2015) Now to Uber. The taxi companies deeply want to kill Uber, and they will invite the unions to help them, and they do not see that taxi unions will kill the taxi companies - (autonomous cars will help do this as well). Uber succeeds because the cost of taxi ride is huge with most of the money going to the medallion holders and not to the drivers (except for independent drivers who own medallions - tax and other laws force heirs to sell medallions after the owner dies in most cases because few heirs want to grow up to drive taxis). Medallion owners allow a pittance to reach the drivers - which is why Uber did so well. A person could drive for Uber and make lots of $$ and some for Uber as well. Medallion prices crashed by 80% or so. Many medallions in New York were bought by huge loans that are worth a lot more than the medallion is worth with either Uber drivers of autonomous cars in the race. Huge legislative efforts by medallion owners to allow them to fire their taxi drivers and shift the medallion to their autonomous fleet are being made. Enuf rant

wavefunction 10y ago

The US population has been under a sustained propaganda campaign for several decades intended to promote a hyper-capitalist/libertarian agenda that serves the interests of a very small number of people. The media in the US promotes this message, both because its members have themselves been awash in the propaganda their whole lives and also because the media organs in this country are largely corporate. Combine that with a general disinterest in critical thinking that has also been "encouraged" by those same cynical forces described above to ensure that they have an uneducated, incurious population that believes what they want. So now you can see why income inequality is growing in the US.

mhneu 10y ago
Right. This disinformation campaign gathered steam in the 1970s. The Powell Memorandum is a decent marker of the beginning of this modern corporate political movement. Here's a place to start reading. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-cor...
andy_ppp 10y ago
It's just like the "Japan has no housing regulations and it's better". It's not; the homes are small, cheaply made and over priced compared to anything in the west! The only places where housing is priced at a sensible level are those countries that the government build high quality local housing that the market has to produce better housing than to compete.
- Jabanga 10y ago
  Please, for the love of God, learn about the US home building industry and about the construction industry in general. Nothing you said even approaches the truth, except for old Japanese housing (new Japanese housing is much better than the old stock) being of lower quality than US housing.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    Interesting but let's look at rent prices to give us a guide shall we? In central Tokyo you can get a 300 square foot apartment for $1800 per month and in the Mission (probably the cheapest part of San Fran?) for something that small (it's the legal limit) it's about the same. The rest of Japan is more expensive than the US per square foot. You actually get less space usually in new Japanese housing if anything. And I maintain they are cheaply built compared to US property. It's very difficult to compare property across countries but this has been my experience and I think everyone living in Japan vs Western countries you seem to get larger better built buildings for your money.
    - Jabanga 10y ago
      Japan is more land constrained than the US. That's why rent is higher. It has a much less developed construction tradition than the US, which inherited its construction technology from Europe. More importantly Japan focused much less on durable constuction during the Middle Ages, and instead focused on building types that could be quickly repaired and rebuilt. That tradition carried over to the present, while the US benefited from the European building tradition of more durable construction.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Japan is also not that big of an island.
Jabanga 10y ago
It's ironic that the US population has continuously voted to increases social welfare spending since the 1970s. Thanks to all of this socialism, the US now has lower labour productivity growth than anytime in the past century.
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  Except for Reagan and Clinton's welfare cuts - and productivity has far outpaced the wages which workers have earned since the 70's.
  - Jabanga 10y ago
    In the aggregate, there has been a huge increase in social welfare spending. I can show you the raw, inflation-adjusted statistics if you wish. What this means is that social welfare expansions have far outsized the cuts. >productivity has far outpaced the wages which workers have earned since the 70's. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where... >Almost all the benefits of economic growth since [the 1970s] have gone to a small number of people at the very top. —Robert Reich, Financial Times, Jan. 29, 2008 >Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners. —Robert H. Frank, New York Times, March 9, 2008 >The modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population. —David Leonhardt, New York Times, April 9, 2008 ... >These statistics appear quite compelling, but hiding in the background are some key issues that might alter the story. Average household size declined substantially during the past 30 years, so household income is being spread across fewer people. The mix of household types—married versus single, young versus old—also changed considerably, so the “median household” in 2006 looks quite different from the “median household” in 1976. Finally, the measure of income used by the Census Bureau to compute household income excludes some rapidly growing sources of income. ... >Here is a preview of the key data issues that lead to the higher estimates of median household income growth. >The price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation, and thus understates income gains, relative to a preferred price index. >A changing mix of household types leads the overall median increase to understate the median increase of most household types. >The Census Bureau measure of household income understates income growth by excluding some rapidly growing sources of income. >The remaining difference between the 44 percent to 62 percent increase in median household incomes and the 80 percent increase in BEA personal income per person appears to be largely attributable to an increase in income inequality. The findings in this article are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. However, the findings here are not consistent with the view that the incomes of middle American households stagnated over the past 30 years. Income for most middle American households increased substantially. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...
acdha 10y ago
Cold War politics entered into the picture, too, since many labor activists were left of center and accusing them of being a communist beachfront was an easy political attack. One other complication: as with most parts of U.S. history, racism shows up at key points. Some unions have a history of racial discrimination – not least because factory owners tried to use African American workers to break strikes – but others, especially the government unions, were actually attacking race or sex-based discrimination, which didn't win them support among the more conservative workers. One thing I've noticed is a trend in who is portrayed as the “lazy union worker” in attacks, where they never show e.g. a white police officer in a negative context but routinely depict a public school teacher as someone unqualified who got the job by virtue of being female, minority, etc. One thing we're not short on are people who will act against their own personal interests if they think it'll hurt an undeserving other.
true_religion 10y ago
I think its fairly easy to criticise the actions of existing powerful unions, and postulate that the less relevant unions lost relevance exactly due to the same concerns and lack of monopoly protection. Teachers unions for instance are still very strong on a state-by-state basis, but are disliked because they continuously only promote public schools and do whatever they can do show disdain for private school teachers, and students. This 'us versus them' mentality doesn't endear them to parents who simply want the best education for their children and not necessarily a "public school". Additionally due to teacher's unions, demonstrably bad teachers are difficult to remove from their positions. Police unions act similarly, by closing ranks anytime there's a whiff of a corruption investigation and proposing measures that essentially make police officers a protected class when it comes to criminal investigations against them. It's no surprise that the general public isn't in favour of them. Unions historically can be favoured by the general population, when most people in the general pop are also members of unions themselves. Unions have an us versus them mentality that puts them at odds not only with management, but also with anyone who isn't a part of a union. They make allowances for and have political alliances with other unions, but don't really think about the public good. An example is that if Software Developers were all in a union, we'd probably work it out so that a garbage man's union strike doesn't affect us too badly, so that in the future when we go on strike, the garbage men won't suddenly find that the apps and software they depend on suddenly has zero support. Given this situation, software devs (of the union) would be 'okay' with the other union, but everyone outside of the union would be unhappy because they're left high and dry.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Symmetry 10y ago

A different legal environment leads to different outcomes. Mostly my personal interactions with unions involve not being allowed to plug in my computer because "That's a union job" and so losing a day of productivity waiting around for them. And then there's the actions of police unions in encouraging officer impunity.

aianus 10y ago

Because I don't want to work somewhere where my pay and likelihood to be laid off is determined almost entirely by my age.

gravypod 10y ago

> I agree. As someone who only recently entered the workforce, I have noticed that people from the US seem to have a particular tendancy to dislike unions whereas here in the UK they are often seen as a good thing. Anyone have any thoughts as to why? If you've ever worked with our seen some of the actions of unions I'm the US I'm sure you understand. They are often political and you can usually be barred from getting a job if you aren't Union. At one point in my life I considered doing lighting and stage work for theaters. After trying for some time, and impressing people with my spotlight work, they told me I'd have to join the union here in NJ and that could take years. I'd have to work for free till I got in! This was common here in NJ. The political side is worse. Let's say you're a Catholic and you work in a company. Your company forces you to work in the union. Then your union donates to pro-abortion charities. Is that fair? I don't think so. Then you have the biggest debate that should be raised about unions: how corrupted they are. Union dues are high and it's not because of the good service. The heads make a lot of money on the backs of some of the hardest working people in our country. You've got union bosses taking half a million pay check who is skimming from minimum wage factory workers. So that's why I think the average Joe hates the American union: they are rich, political, and will bar you from getting a job all while taking your money, pocketing it, and expecting you to thank them for the pleasure.

ch4s3 10y ago
> skimming from minimum wage factory workers No union factory worker in the US makes minimum wage.
jessriedel 10y ago
(Even for folks who believe this characterization of unions is wrong, this is a very valuable comment for describing how unions are perceived.)
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
The corporation you work for can be political and has unilateral control over whether you get a job. The corporation can make political contributions and lobby. Corporation C-level execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers. But the corporation is working (in practice) solely for the shareholders. It seems to me that Unions are no better/worse than the corporation except that their duty is to their members. In this way Unions don't need to be a paragon of virtue because they're a balance to corporate power (even if a bit of a greasy one).

psyc 10y ago

Any grassroots action that would threaten the interests of corporations, such as Walmart, is managed by propaganda. See gravypod's comment for how to give the impression that unions are bad.

MisterBastahrd 10y ago

Because (a) we've been enduring a stream of propaganda for decades now which promotes the idea that unions are for lazy people who use longevity of employment over talent or drive to get promoted, and (b) anyone who has been part of a union in the US knows that if you have to strike against any powerful company, then you may be without a paycheck for up to a month of two, which completely eliminates the value of being in a union in the first place for most people.

davexunit 10y ago

Many, many, many years of the wealthy telling working folks that unions are bad.

zeveb 10y ago

Because U.S. unions are the reason why unionised professions are so miserable. C.f. theatres, in which different people must take down a picture, carry a picture to a different part of the stage, put a nail in the wall, and hang the picture. C.f. prison guards, whose unions actively lobby for increased incarceration. C.f. public 'servants,' who are effectively unfireable. When unions strike, they attack those who go to work anyway. They are closely associated with the mob and racketeering. They are, from what I can tell, generally worse than the corporations they ostensibly protect workers from. I think it should be perfectly legal to organise, perfectly legal to collectively bargain and perfectly legal to strike — but it should also be perfectly legal to fire folks who strike, and perfectly legal to refuse to deal with a union. Also, public employees should be strictly forbidden to strike, or to collectively bargain. I do kinda wish that there were a non-adversarial way for employees to have a voice with their employers, but unions as they currently exist are not the right mechanism. Maybe employment contracts? There was a time in history when businesses were abusive enough that unions' outrageous actions were perhaps necessary, but that's simply no longer the case. Strikes and violence to overthrow paternalistic company town and unsafe mines? Maybe. Strikes and violence to ensure that teachers who browse porn in class don't get fired? Nope.

wfo 10y ago
The employer-employee relationship is almost always adversarial, we just don't notice it because the power is so imbalanced in favor of the employer and it's to their benefit to convince you it's not adversarial. The employer pays you the absolute minimum he can to extract the maximum amount of value out of you in return. If he could force you to work an extra day for free, he would. If he could force you to work unpaid overtime, he would. If he could force you to take a risk to your own health in order to work more quickly and make him more profit, he would. This is all inherent and necessary qualities of capitalism. We have checks to try to make this system palatable for human beings to exist within -- employers are liable for workplace injuries, you must be paid for your labor (unless you are salaried), and unions exist. Corporate interests are constantly trying to undermine every single check we have installed, and to prevent new ones. They must; it's their job, it will increase profits. Most complaints about unions essentially boil down to them being too powerful. But if the government isn't going to step in and be a check on corporate power, unions had better be powerful enough to do something about it. Tricking you into thinking this relationship is not adversarial is the greatest trick your adversary has ever pulled.

Shivetya 10y ago

depending on industry they may or not may not be good for you. a lot of the blame for the steel industry failing and in part the woes of the auto industry were blamed on unions demanding too much. they also are a reason many don't like the police because that union buries a lot. throw in that public service unions run up salaries and benefits of members who aren't in dangerous or unfairly compensate industries and regular working people get annoyed (countless stories about exceedingly high payouts for some retirees because of pension abuse and such all paid by taxes). Government unions tend to be the prime reason many dislike them because of the near immunity some members derive from such status lower income earners tend to not get as much benefit from the high cost of dues (based on percentage of income) versus some higher wage earners.

aurizon 10y ago

At the heart of the union mentality is the deep desire to advance their members at the expense of non-union members. As we have seen the full flower of this mind state has cost the US economy millions of jobs as the total cost of Auto jobs and by collateral influence many other jobs - whose work went to cheaper labor cost places. If we all were in the union and all wages were the same (with skill/education/risk/etc modifying premiums) this would be workable. As it now is China and India(to a lesser degree) can now sell finished goods into the USA for a lot less than they can be made in the USA. In an ideal world, currency changes and import duties would act to level this. Sadly this is not the case and various forces will make Chinese and Indian products take larger portions of our markets every year. The exception is big bulky/fluffy items, like mattresses and some furniture that is so bulky that freight costs act as a de-facto import duty. Now in Europe we have a far higher degree of unions than the USA, so there is not as big a wage spread across the workers, as we have in the USA. In the UK the unions got so far out of hand with greed etc that Thatcher was forced to act. I refer to strikes, work rules, featherbedding (Google it - union men who did zero work at all - but got paid because they used to have a job where they made an item for 8 hours, and the company eliminated the part completely - yet the whole factory went on strike to keep these men paid). As you can see the US and UK auto business pretty much died off in terms of the number of workers (compare the number of USA/UK Auto workers in 1960 to 2015) Now to Uber. The taxi companies deeply want to kill Uber, and they will invite the unions to help them, and they do not see that taxi unions will kill the taxi companies - (autonomous cars will help do this as well). Uber succeeds because the cost of taxi ride is huge with most of the money going to the medallion holders and not to the drivers (except for independent drivers who own medallions - tax and other laws force heirs to sell medallions after the owner dies in most cases because few heirs want to grow up to drive taxis). Medallion owners allow a pittance to reach the drivers - which is why Uber did so well. A person could drive for Uber and make lots of $$ and some for Uber as well. Medallion prices crashed by 80% or so. Many medallions in New York were bought by huge loans that are worth a lot more than the medallion is worth with either Uber drivers of autonomous cars in the race. Huge legislative efforts by medallion owners to allow them to fire their taxi drivers and shift the medallion to their autonomous fleet are being made. Enuf rant