7 ms·

Ugh. Anti-union propaganda from employers is always so disgusting. It's always so full of outright lies, confidently stated, that become the default baseline fo

Ugh. Anti-union propaganda from employers is always so disgusting. It's always so full of outright lies, confidently stated, that become the default baseline for the discourse. It's like the earliest glimmerings of the post-truth era.

chrisseaton 10y ago
But you could say the same thing about the pro-union propaganda from the unions. Both the companies and the unions are out for themselves and will tell you how they see things their ways as if it were fact. Neither is worse than the other, and an employee (or Uber contractor) would be a fool to take anything either side said at face value.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  "Companies" and "unions" are abstract fictions; the actual people involved are, respectively, owners (shareholders for a corporation, members for an LLC, partners for a partnership, etc.) and workers.
  - zardo 10y ago
    The workers and shareholders are not producing the pro|anti union communications without structure; the abstract fictions they pay for are an important aspect of the discussion.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      No, the agents they choose and supervise, not the abstract fictions, are doing that.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    Both sides, owners and other workers, care about their own existing interests, not yours. Getting you involved, or keeping you from getting involved, is in both cases just a way to strengthen their own position. They don't care about your position. Why would they? Or do you think the unions are just doing it for your sake out of the goodness of their hearts? Well if you're willing to be so trusting that they are doing the right thing, why not trust the owners as well?
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      I don't understand the sentiment you're trying to express. You seem to be making a distinction between workers and a hypothetical "you" who is somehow a worker and yet not a worker at the same time. It reminds me of doublethink.
      - Eridrus 10y ago
        There are power structures inside a union that may not align with your own interests. As an analogy, nations are made up or citizens, but that doesn't mean they are aligned with any individual citizen.
      - drdeca 10y ago
        The goals/interests of a collection of workers needn't always align with those of every individual worker. The goals/interests of the workers in a particular collection of workers are not all identical ( even after modding out by certain things like "it is in my interests to receive more payment, but not /inherently/ in my interests that Joe receive more payment, and visa versa for Joe's interests").
    - ivanbakel 10y ago
      A union is not an abstract entity - it's a body of workers. The union "cares about your position" because it is their position, by definition. A union has interests because its members have those interests, and when you join the union, it adapts to your interests. Admittedly, workers already in the union have a reason to encourage you to join, but it's not sensible to suggest unions don't care about workers, because that's their only defining purpose.
      - skybrian 10y ago
        The leadership or representatives of a group don't necessarily have the same interests as the group. This isn't specific to unions. It's also true of representative democracy and corporate governance. For more see [1]. (That is, in theory it's certainly possible. I don't know how bad this is in practice.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_prob...
  - rhino369 10y ago
    Unions are far more than the people they represent. They often are run by non-workers. They are supposed to run it for the workers benefit, but they have their own interests which conflict.
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      So the logic is: 1. Union becomes big, needs full-time administrators 2. Union immediately becomes utterly self-serving and no longer has worker interests at heart You can make the same argument about governments. It's like the old joke about democracy. Unions the worst form of worker advocates, except for all the others.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You can make the same argument about governments. Or corporations, and it's flawed in all three cases, even though the principal-agent problem [0] is a real thing that should not be ignored, and does come into play in all three scenarios. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
      - rhino369 10y ago
        The government absolutely has the same issue, even moreso. That's why public unions are horrible. You've got the government negotiating with unions. And the negotiators get political donations and votes from the unions. Some unions have their workers best interests in mind. Others don't. When I was in high school, I worked at a union store. I had to join the union. But I made less than walmart workers in the same job category and seniority. The union cut a deal with my old employer that got old workers a sweat deal (some cashiers were making 25 dollars if they worked there since the 70s). I made 7.5. And it wasn't just seniority. I could work there my entire career and I'd never make over 9.5 for part time work. They had different contracts for new employees than old. And I was forced to pay 10 bucks a week for that bullcrap.
  - golergka 10y ago
    Workers? Have you seen what a union beurocracy machine usually looks like?
- marricks 10y ago
  Sure, if unions pumped out lies to uber employees of the same magnitude that'd be bad, but it's not what we're talking about and don't have evidence of, so pretty irrelevant. Also, "neither is worse than the other" is either false or so vague as to not have meaning. Unions are out for their workers, it's their raison d'être. So, for a worker, a union is better than no union. I'd imagine for the CEO no union is better than one so they don't have to care about what their workers collectively bargain for.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    > Unions are out for their workers I'm not really sure it's quite that simple. The union is out to strengthen the position of their members. They want you to join because it strengthens them, not because they're just nice people in general and want to help you. The deal they make to you might be best for them, but not best for you.
    - YCode 10y ago
      Does that not meet the same end? By strengthening their position they can barter for better benefits for you. Even if those benefits aren't precisely the ones you want, that doesn't negate the fact that they are on your collective side. On the other hand, the employer wants none of that because they want as much power over employees as they can muster. How does that make them as worse as each other? It's somewhat ironic that it seems like a lot of people in this thread are basing their talking points on unions off the anti-union propaganda at hand rather than personal experience or evidence.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - dangero 10y ago
        https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Teamsters-Reviews-E2999.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Teamsters-Reviews-E2999.ht... Here is some evidence that helps explain Teamsters. It's a lot different to have Teamsters come in than this utopian view of a few workers banning together to protect their interests.
- kingkawn 10y ago
  Business people can organize for the sake of their shared interests but workers doing it is propagandistic? We don't support their pursuit of their interests but instead indulge generations of false equivalencies and anti-union rhetoric to make people feel they are giving up something by asking for things together. The middle ground you claim to speak for is just people without lots of money being shamed out of the pursuit of their individual betterment given their economic position.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    > Business people can organize for the sake of their shared interests but workers doing it is propagandistic? No I didn't say that what the business was saying wasn't propaganda. I said that what the union was saying was propaganda as well. > make people feel they are giving up something by asking for things together I don't think you have to go up something by asking for things together, but it does seem likely in practice doesn't it? A large group of people are unlikely to all agree on exactly what they wanted without any compromise amongst themselves are they? Any some of the compromises might mean individual workers actually have their interests damaged.
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  That is absolutely a false equivalency, and it's one that is generally used by anti-union politicians/management to support curbs on union activity. So - a union (as plenty of people in this thread have pointed out) is a worker organization, intended to support and protect the (collective) interests of the workers in a particular trade or a particular industry. They may fail to represent any particular worker whose interests don't align well with their fellow workers as a whole because of unusual circumstances. And it's possible for a union to fail to represent its members as a whole -- this normally happens with big trade unions where the leadership and payed administrators get too cozy with management and too far removed from the shop floor, a structure encouraged by US labor law. However, unions are, at least in principle, On Your Side and representing Your Interests -- when they fail to do so, it is for the same reasons that representative democracy tends to fail. On the other hand, you have management, who are out to maximize profits, especially short-term profits, and see labor as a cost-center to be minimized as much as possible. Management are inherently in opposition to Your Interests as a worker. And their opposition to unions is mainly due to the fact that the union gives you the power to fight for Your Interests in opposition to Their Interests. So you see why the two are not at all equivalent? Pro-union propaganda may be to some extent false -- to the extent that it presents to you an overly rosy picture or a best-case-scenario that you are unlikely to realize. But anti-union propaganda is guaranteed to be an absolute fabric of lies trying to convince you to act against what are almost certainly your best interests.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    You're absolutely right! The two are not the same. Unions are intended to support, protect, and advance the interests of workers. That said, there is one possible catch. Each union advances the interest of the workers they currently represent as they see them. It is possible that this may not always be the same as the interests of the workers they are advertising to. There are other failure modes, too. A minority union working with one company many sacrifice the interests of their members there in order to gain an advantage with negotiations with a different company. This most famously happened with Hostess, wherein one of the unions that represented a small number of Hostess workers was incredibly hostile in negotiations in order to improve their hand with a different company. You're absolutely right that anti-union propaganda should be distrusted and disregarded out-of-hand. Yet, it's perhaps possible that pro-union interests shouldn't be treated as automatically aligned with those of a given worker or set of workers. As you say, in-principle alignment isn't always the same as in-practice alignment.
- ska 10y ago
  Neither is worse than the other. There is a good track record to go on here, and this statement simply ahistorical. It has been a very successful framing in the USA, particularly, but that is about marketing, not fact.

chrisseaton 10y ago

But you could say the same thing about the pro-union propaganda from the unions. Both the companies and the unions are out for themselves and will tell you how they see things their ways as if it were fact. Neither is worse than the other, and an employee (or Uber contractor) would be a fool to take anything either side said at face value.

dragonwriter 10y ago
"Companies" and "unions" are abstract fictions; the actual people involved are, respectively, owners (shareholders for a corporation, members for an LLC, partners for a partnership, etc.) and workers.
- zardo 10y ago
  The workers and shareholders are not producing the pro|anti union communications without structure; the abstract fictions they pay for are an important aspect of the discussion.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No, the agents they choose and supervise, not the abstract fictions, are doing that.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Both sides, owners and other workers, care about their own existing interests, not yours. Getting you involved, or keeping you from getting involved, is in both cases just a way to strengthen their own position. They don't care about your position. Why would they? Or do you think the unions are just doing it for your sake out of the goodness of their hearts? Well if you're willing to be so trusting that they are doing the right thing, why not trust the owners as well?
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    I don't understand the sentiment you're trying to express. You seem to be making a distinction between workers and a hypothetical "you" who is somehow a worker and yet not a worker at the same time. It reminds me of doublethink.
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      There are power structures inside a union that may not align with your own interests. As an analogy, nations are made up or citizens, but that doesn't mean they are aligned with any individual citizen.
    - drdeca 10y ago
      The goals/interests of a collection of workers needn't always align with those of every individual worker. The goals/interests of the workers in a particular collection of workers are not all identical ( even after modding out by certain things like "it is in my interests to receive more payment, but not /inherently/ in my interests that Joe receive more payment, and visa versa for Joe's interests").
  - ivanbakel 10y ago
    A union is not an abstract entity - it's a body of workers. The union "cares about your position" because it is their position, by definition. A union has interests because its members have those interests, and when you join the union, it adapts to your interests. Admittedly, workers already in the union have a reason to encourage you to join, but it's not sensible to suggest unions don't care about workers, because that's their only defining purpose.
    - skybrian 10y ago
      The leadership or representatives of a group don't necessarily have the same interests as the group. This isn't specific to unions. It's also true of representative democracy and corporate governance. For more see [1]. (That is, in theory it's certainly possible. I don't know how bad this is in practice.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_prob...
- rhino369 10y ago
  Unions are far more than the people they represent. They often are run by non-workers. They are supposed to run it for the workers benefit, but they have their own interests which conflict.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    So the logic is: 1. Union becomes big, needs full-time administrators 2. Union immediately becomes utterly self-serving and no longer has worker interests at heart You can make the same argument about governments. It's like the old joke about democracy. Unions the worst form of worker advocates, except for all the others.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > You can make the same argument about governments. Or corporations, and it's flawed in all three cases, even though the principal-agent problem [0] is a real thing that should not be ignored, and does come into play in all three scenarios. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
    - rhino369 10y ago
      The government absolutely has the same issue, even moreso. That's why public unions are horrible. You've got the government negotiating with unions. And the negotiators get political donations and votes from the unions. Some unions have their workers best interests in mind. Others don't. When I was in high school, I worked at a union store. I had to join the union. But I made less than walmart workers in the same job category and seniority. The union cut a deal with my old employer that got old workers a sweat deal (some cashiers were making 25 dollars if they worked there since the 70s). I made 7.5. And it wasn't just seniority. I could work there my entire career and I'd never make over 9.5 for part time work. They had different contracts for new employees than old. And I was forced to pay 10 bucks a week for that bullcrap.
- golergka 10y ago
  Workers? Have you seen what a union beurocracy machine usually looks like?
marricks 10y ago
Sure, if unions pumped out lies to uber employees of the same magnitude that'd be bad, but it's not what we're talking about and don't have evidence of, so pretty irrelevant. Also, "neither is worse than the other" is either false or so vague as to not have meaning. Unions are out for their workers, it's their raison d'être. So, for a worker, a union is better than no union. I'd imagine for the CEO no union is better than one so they don't have to care about what their workers collectively bargain for.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  > Unions are out for their workers I'm not really sure it's quite that simple. The union is out to strengthen the position of their members. They want you to join because it strengthens them, not because they're just nice people in general and want to help you. The deal they make to you might be best for them, but not best for you.
  - YCode 10y ago
    Does that not meet the same end? By strengthening their position they can barter for better benefits for you. Even if those benefits aren't precisely the ones you want, that doesn't negate the fact that they are on your collective side. On the other hand, the employer wants none of that because they want as much power over employees as they can muster. How does that make them as worse as each other? It's somewhat ironic that it seems like a lot of people in this thread are basing their talking points on unions off the anti-union propaganda at hand rather than personal experience or evidence.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dangero 10y ago
      https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Teamsters-Reviews-E2999.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Teamsters-Reviews-E2999.ht... Here is some evidence that helps explain Teamsters. It's a lot different to have Teamsters come in than this utopian view of a few workers banning together to protect their interests.
kingkawn 10y ago
Business people can organize for the sake of their shared interests but workers doing it is propagandistic? We don't support their pursuit of their interests but instead indulge generations of false equivalencies and anti-union rhetoric to make people feel they are giving up something by asking for things together. The middle ground you claim to speak for is just people without lots of money being shamed out of the pursuit of their individual betterment given their economic position.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  > Business people can organize for the sake of their shared interests but workers doing it is propagandistic? No I didn't say that what the business was saying wasn't propaganda. I said that what the union was saying was propaganda as well. > make people feel they are giving up something by asking for things together I don't think you have to go up something by asking for things together, but it does seem likely in practice doesn't it? A large group of people are unlikely to all agree on exactly what they wanted without any compromise amongst themselves are they? Any some of the compromises might mean individual workers actually have their interests damaged.
NoGravitas 10y ago
That is absolutely a false equivalency, and it's one that is generally used by anti-union politicians/management to support curbs on union activity. So - a union (as plenty of people in this thread have pointed out) is a worker organization, intended to support and protect the (collective) interests of the workers in a particular trade or a particular industry. They may fail to represent any particular worker whose interests don't align well with their fellow workers as a whole because of unusual circumstances. And it's possible for a union to fail to represent its members as a whole -- this normally happens with big trade unions where the leadership and payed administrators get too cozy with management and too far removed from the shop floor, a structure encouraged by US labor law. However, unions are, at least in principle, On Your Side and representing Your Interests -- when they fail to do so, it is for the same reasons that representative democracy tends to fail. On the other hand, you have management, who are out to maximize profits, especially short-term profits, and see labor as a cost-center to be minimized as much as possible. Management are inherently in opposition to Your Interests as a worker. And their opposition to unions is mainly due to the fact that the union gives you the power to fight for Your Interests in opposition to Their Interests. So you see why the two are not at all equivalent? Pro-union propaganda may be to some extent false -- to the extent that it presents to you an overly rosy picture or a best-case-scenario that you are unlikely to realize. But anti-union propaganda is guaranteed to be an absolute fabric of lies trying to convince you to act against what are almost certainly your best interests.
- Kalium 10y ago
  You're absolutely right! The two are not the same. Unions are intended to support, protect, and advance the interests of workers. That said, there is one possible catch. Each union advances the interest of the workers they currently represent as they see them. It is possible that this may not always be the same as the interests of the workers they are advertising to. There are other failure modes, too. A minority union working with one company many sacrifice the interests of their members there in order to gain an advantage with negotiations with a different company. This most famously happened with Hostess, wherein one of the unions that represented a small number of Hostess workers was incredibly hostile in negotiations in order to improve their hand with a different company. You're absolutely right that anti-union propaganda should be distrusted and disregarded out-of-hand. Yet, it's perhaps possible that pro-union interests shouldn't be treated as automatically aligned with those of a given worker or set of workers. As you say, in-principle alignment isn't always the same as in-practice alignment.
ska 10y ago
Neither is worse than the other. There is a good track record to go on here, and this statement simply ahistorical. It has been a very successful framing in the USA, particularly, but that is about marketing, not fact.