4 ms·

No, the governance structure of a union is democracy. The governance structure of a corporation is dictatorship. The corporate structure is designed with the in

by wfo 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    What do you think of the example I said elsewhere where a union of mostly older workers votes for pay by seniority, and I'm a younger worker? The union has an incentive to get me to join, as it helps them get their pay by seniority, but it doesn't help me so they would want to hide that from me. I would be cautious of what they tell me, just like I would be cautious of what Uber tells me. A vote does nothing to help me if I'm down-voted. I'd be better off outside the union so it doesn't have more power to force pay by seniority, but they don't want me to know that. Hence the risk of propaganda. There's actually no corruption there, just their interests not being mine.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      It seems like you're confusing having a say with simply getting what you want. If you don't like the seniority pay structure a union is pushing, you can go and try and talk to people to change the vote. Presumably there are a lot more younger workers than old (the way it tends to go everywhere), and you younguns could arrange the union in a way to benefit you now AND in the future. No union? Well, you're on your own, negotiating with people who see you as disposable and expendable (and they do--they'd be fools not to). Remember, in a democracy, a vote isn't a ticket to instantly get what you want, it's a way to ensure that you have some say even if it doesn't go your way every time.
      - chrisseaton 9y ago
        > you can go and try and talk to people to change the vote Or I could not join the union! Vote with my feet! Why would I want to give more power to a group of people trying to do something I don't want? You're saying join them, vote on it, and then when I lose the vote stick with it anyway because that's democracy. No, if I don't like something then I'm better off not affording them the right to say they're representing me. The union knows that, so they have an incentive to give me disinformation to get me to join. That's my original point - the union does potentially have incentives to give disinformation. Just like the company has. So I treat both with skepticism.
- wfo 9y ago
  If you are getting a vote on the board of a company you are management, not labor so yes you're right unions are not great for you. They make your life harder because now instead of having complete and total control over your workers, they have negotiating power. Management cannot be part of a union. They don't need unions; they already have all the power. Unions were created out of a moral necessity to push back against them because unchecked the way management behaves (in the general/worst case, consider e.g. The Jungle) is horrifying. You need to be clear what kind of person the hypothetical 'you' we are discussing is. The critical point here is that of course, in democracies decisions are not made that always align with your views. This does not mean democracy is bad considering the other options available, it just means that democracy is imperfect. If something is being considered as an option, I would prefer to have a vote over not having one. When you are not in the union you have no vote. When you are in the union you have one. If you don't want one and are content to provide complete and blind obedience towards every directive given by management, are comfortable with a possible firing without cause or dangerous working conditions with no compensation or reduction in salary/benefits or forced unpaid overtime, and want to abandon your fellow workers who need the cooperation of the full workforce in order to do collective bargaining which almost always happens partially on your behalf whether you want it or not (enjoy salary bumps? benefits? weekends? vacation days? not being fired for being sick? these are things that exist only because of unions)... well that's certainly your choice as well. Just as in a democracy you can choose not to vote, you just don't get to complain about the outcome which you've chosen to have no say in.
bmelton 9y ago
> What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that fascism and democracy are both the same You've taken dictatorship and equated it with fascism. I'll assume you didn't intend the bait and switch there, but it's not necessarily the case. It's worth remembering that not all democracy is good, and not all authoritarianism is bad[1]. California's proposition 8 banning homosexual marriage was a democratic decision, while supporting the arts through encouraging the establishment of People's Houses[2] was an authoritarian one. The point that I believe the grand-parent was making is that a lie in support of a goal that you like is not better than a lie in support of a goal that you don't. Both are lies, and shame on whomever proffers them as fact. If your position is indeed the superior one, then you shouldn't need to result to lies to bolster your position. That said, it's been well established that unions, democratic or not, are not always acting in the best interests of their members. We've seen this time and again with kickback cooperation, compelled membership, disallowance of disassociation, corruption, etc. I'm not necessarily invested in the debate here, so please don't take my position as arguing for or against either side, but as I recently mentioned elsewhere, if your position is that "unions are good and companies are bad", then you've fallen prey to ideological confirmation bias, and are disinviting nuance from the conversation, which limits the effectiveness of said discourse. It is indeed "not that simple". [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Houses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Houses
- wfo 9y ago
  You are certainly correct about fascism and dictatorship, that was a mistake not an intentional bait and switch on my part. And certainly in isolated cases dictatorships can be better than democracies. But I think there's plenty of evidence throughout history to suggest that over time democracies perform better for the people in them. There are certainly companies that operate like benevolent dictatorships; many high end tech firms come to mind. Small businesses I've worked at come to mind. These are companies which don't require unions and for which unions are mostly counterproductive -- I agree. You generally do not see unions where workers don't need them and a great many companies fall into that category. But we are discussing the case where a union is being formed/already exists. So a huge number of workers have already decided that trusting the dictator's benevolence has not been working out. And indeed, unions can act opposed to the interest of some of its members. That's why unions have meetings and discussion and voting. States can act against the interest of their members as well. We don't throw away the idea of voting at all and give a person absolute and complete power because this happens.

by wfo 9y ago

chrisseaton 9y 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 9y 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.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  What do you think of the example I said elsewhere where a union of mostly older workers votes for pay by seniority, and I'm a younger worker? The union has an incentive to get me to join, as it helps them get their pay by seniority, but it doesn't help me so they would want to hide that from me. I would be cautious of what they tell me, just like I would be cautious of what Uber tells me. A vote does nothing to help me if I'm down-voted. I'd be better off outside the union so it doesn't have more power to force pay by seniority, but they don't want me to know that. Hence the risk of propaganda. There's actually no corruption there, just their interests not being mine.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    It seems like you're confusing having a say with simply getting what you want. If you don't like the seniority pay structure a union is pushing, you can go and try and talk to people to change the vote. Presumably there are a lot more younger workers than old (the way it tends to go everywhere), and you younguns could arrange the union in a way to benefit you now AND in the future. No union? Well, you're on your own, negotiating with people who see you as disposable and expendable (and they do--they'd be fools not to). Remember, in a democracy, a vote isn't a ticket to instantly get what you want, it's a way to ensure that you have some say even if it doesn't go your way every time.
    - chrisseaton 9y ago
      > you can go and try and talk to people to change the vote Or I could not join the union! Vote with my feet! Why would I want to give more power to a group of people trying to do something I don't want? You're saying join them, vote on it, and then when I lose the vote stick with it anyway because that's democracy. No, if I don't like something then I'm better off not affording them the right to say they're representing me. The union knows that, so they have an incentive to give me disinformation to get me to join. That's my original point - the union does potentially have incentives to give disinformation. Just like the company has. So I treat both with skepticism.
wfo 9y ago
If you are getting a vote on the board of a company you are management, not labor so yes you're right unions are not great for you. They make your life harder because now instead of having complete and total control over your workers, they have negotiating power. Management cannot be part of a union. They don't need unions; they already have all the power. Unions were created out of a moral necessity to push back against them because unchecked the way management behaves (in the general/worst case, consider e.g. The Jungle) is horrifying. You need to be clear what kind of person the hypothetical 'you' we are discussing is. The critical point here is that of course, in democracies decisions are not made that always align with your views. This does not mean democracy is bad considering the other options available, it just means that democracy is imperfect. If something is being considered as an option, I would prefer to have a vote over not having one. When you are not in the union you have no vote. When you are in the union you have one. If you don't want one and are content to provide complete and blind obedience towards every directive given by management, are comfortable with a possible firing without cause or dangerous working conditions with no compensation or reduction in salary/benefits or forced unpaid overtime, and want to abandon your fellow workers who need the cooperation of the full workforce in order to do collective bargaining which almost always happens partially on your behalf whether you want it or not (enjoy salary bumps? benefits? weekends? vacation days? not being fired for being sick? these are things that exist only because of unions)... well that's certainly your choice as well. Just as in a democracy you can choose not to vote, you just don't get to complain about the outcome which you've chosen to have no say in.

bmelton 9y ago

> What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that fascism and democracy are both the same You've taken dictatorship and equated it with fascism. I'll assume you didn't intend the bait and switch there, but it's not necessarily the case. It's worth remembering that not all democracy is good, and not all authoritarianism is bad[1]. California's proposition 8 banning homosexual marriage was a democratic decision, while supporting the arts through encouraging the establishment of People's Houses[2] was an authoritarian one. The point that I believe the grand-parent was making is that a lie in support of a goal that you like is not better than a lie in support of a goal that you don't. Both are lies, and shame on whomever proffers them as fact. If your position is indeed the superior one, then you shouldn't need to result to lies to bolster your position. That said, it's been well established that unions, democratic or not, are not always acting in the best interests of their members. We've seen this time and again with kickback cooperation, compelled membership, disallowance of disassociation, corruption, etc. I'm not necessarily invested in the debate here, so please don't take my position as arguing for or against either side, but as I recently mentioned elsewhere, if your position is that "unions are good and companies are bad", then you've fallen prey to ideological confirmation bias, and are disinviting nuance from the conversation, which limits the effectiveness of said discourse. It is indeed "not that simple". [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Houses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Houses

wfo 9y ago
You are certainly correct about fascism and dictatorship, that was a mistake not an intentional bait and switch on my part. And certainly in isolated cases dictatorships can be better than democracies. But I think there's plenty of evidence throughout history to suggest that over time democracies perform better for the people in them. There are certainly companies that operate like benevolent dictatorships; many high end tech firms come to mind. Small businesses I've worked at come to mind. These are companies which don't require unions and for which unions are mostly counterproductive -- I agree. You generally do not see unions where workers don't need them and a great many companies fall into that category. But we are discussing the case where a union is being formed/already exists. So a huge number of workers have already decided that trusting the dictator's benevolence has not been working out. And indeed, unions can act opposed to the interest of some of its members. That's why unions have meetings and discussion and voting. States can act against the interest of their members as well. We don't throw away the idea of voting at all and give a person absolute and complete power because this happens.