6 ms·

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 pret

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.
    - Apocryphon 10y ago
      Assuming those reviews are all truthful and accurate, then it sounds like more workers should join the Teamsters and reform them for the better, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
- marricks 10y ago
  > The union is out to strengthen the position of their members. Did you mean people in the union? AKA workers? Sure they want a strong position when bargaining for worker rights. This seems like it's good for workers still. Going another step further one could, more truly, state CEO's and the board are just out for their own interest. They could (and do) attempt to skate by caring as little for their own workers as possible. In which case, it'd be nice if someone had enough power to stand up and get better working conditions through some sort of organized union perhaps?
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    Say a union is mostly run by older workers. They may be interested in getting the company to make pay by seniority only. You're a young worker. They want you to join, because it gives them more bargaining power to get their seniority pay implemented. It doesn't help you at all. They only want you to join to help them. I don't know if that kind of thing happens a lot in practice, but can you see how their interests aren't always going to be yours?
    - chii 10y ago
      so you don't join, or negotiate it such that the condition on joining is that the union also argues for rights for younger workers.
      - Eridrus 10y ago
        I think the most unions attempt to make union membership a requirement for working at unionized employers, so you don't really have much choice at that point and the union is free to diverge from your interests.
        LesZedCB 10y ago
        well, if you work at the company that does have a unionized workforce, then you do receive the benefits that a union negotiated. So, sure, you don't have to join the union, but it wouldn't be fair to receive the benefits of the other union members collective bargaining, while not paying into it yourself. On the other hand, if you _still_ think that's somehow unfair, you can go to one of those "right to work" states....
- wfo 10y ago
  No, the governance structure of a union is democracy. The governance structure of a corporation is dictatorship. The corporate structure is designed with the interests of management and shareholders in mind. To protect against brutal abuses of workers by these classes, unions were formed. What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that fascism and democracy are both the same because democratically elected representatives do not at all times represent all of the interests of all of their constituents. Which is often true, and can be a serious concern -- one that you should bring up at your local union meeting. Where you vote on the behavior of the union. And discuss with your fellow workers. Where you can advocate for yourself without being immediately fired/denied promotion/punished for it. Or I suppose you could talk to management yourself and ask to be treated better. Better have that resume ready to go though. I hope you live in a town where work is plentiful and you don't need your job.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    Say a union has democratically decided to work towards some objective A. But I don't want A. I might even be morally opposed to A. They will want to get me to join, even though it is not in my interest, because it helps them achieve A. Both the company and the union have an incentive to present me propaganda to do things their way, even when actually what they want to do could be against what I want or damage me. I don't see how the democratic process of the union makes a different. A group of people not including me democratically decided they wanted to do something, and they're trying to get me to join to help them do that. I don't see how that's different to a board of a company voting and deciding that the want to do something and trying to get me to get on board with that to help them do it.
    - secstate 10y ago
      You seem to critically misunderstand democratic governance. In a union, as a member, you have a vote. In a corporation, as an employee, have no vote. That is not to say there hauven't been corrupt unions. But generally speaking, as the OP said, a union is better than no union for employees.
      - 10y ago
hkmurakami 10y ago
What about future workers who are currently not part of the union?

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.
  - Apocryphon 10y ago
    Assuming those reviews are all truthful and accurate, then it sounds like more workers should join the Teamsters and reform them for the better, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
marricks 10y ago
> The union is out to strengthen the position of their members. Did you mean people in the union? AKA workers? Sure they want a strong position when bargaining for worker rights. This seems like it's good for workers still. Going another step further one could, more truly, state CEO's and the board are just out for their own interest. They could (and do) attempt to skate by caring as little for their own workers as possible. In which case, it'd be nice if someone had enough power to stand up and get better working conditions through some sort of organized union perhaps?
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Say a union is mostly run by older workers. They may be interested in getting the company to make pay by seniority only. You're a young worker. They want you to join, because it gives them more bargaining power to get their seniority pay implemented. It doesn't help you at all. They only want you to join to help them. I don't know if that kind of thing happens a lot in practice, but can you see how their interests aren't always going to be yours?
  - chii 10y ago
    so you don't join, or negotiate it such that the condition on joining is that the union also argues for rights for younger workers.
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      I think the most unions attempt to make union membership a requirement for working at unionized employers, so you don't really have much choice at that point and the union is free to diverge from your interests.
      - LesZedCB 10y ago
        well, if you work at the company that does have a unionized workforce, then you do receive the benefits that a union negotiated. So, sure, you don't have to join the union, but it wouldn't be fair to receive the benefits of the other union members collective bargaining, while not paying into it yourself. On the other hand, if you _still_ think that's somehow unfair, you can go to one of those "right to work" states....
wfo 10y ago
No, the governance structure of a union is democracy. The governance structure of a corporation is dictatorship. The corporate structure is designed with the interests of management and shareholders in mind. To protect against brutal abuses of workers by these classes, unions were formed. What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that fascism and democracy are both the same because democratically elected representatives do not at all times represent all of the interests of all of their constituents. Which is often true, and can be a serious concern -- one that you should bring up at your local union meeting. Where you vote on the behavior of the union. And discuss with your fellow workers. Where you can advocate for yourself without being immediately fired/denied promotion/punished for it. Or I suppose you could talk to management yourself and ask to be treated better. Better have that resume ready to go though. I hope you live in a town where work is plentiful and you don't need your job.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Say a union has democratically decided to work towards some objective A. But I don't want A. I might even be morally opposed to A. They will want to get me to join, even though it is not in my interest, because it helps them achieve A. Both the company and the union have an incentive to present me propaganda to do things their way, even when actually what they want to do could be against what I want or damage me. I don't see how the democratic process of the union makes a different. A group of people not including me democratically decided they wanted to do something, and they're trying to get me to join to help them do that. I don't see how that's different to a board of a company voting and deciding that the want to do something and trying to get me to get on board with that to help them do it.
  - secstate 10y ago
    You seem to critically misunderstand democratic governance. In a union, as a member, you have a vote. In a corporation, as an employee, have no vote. That is not to say there hauven't been corrupt unions. But generally speaking, as the OP said, a union is better than no union for employees.
    - 10y ago

hkmurakami 10y ago

What about future workers who are currently not part of the union?