4 ms·

Unions aren't bad in itself. They largely solve the power asymmetry that exists between larger companies and their employees. Its only that at a certain point u

by jorvi 9y ago

Unions aren't bad in itself. They largely solve the power asymmetry that exists between larger companies and their employees. Its only that at a certain point unions get so big there's actually a power asymmetry the other way: unions can strongarm the companies. How to restore the balance? I have no idea.

Kocrachon 9y ago
Living in Washington State, I've watched the Machinist Union almost cause Boeing to completely leave the state of Washington, and even though Boeing stayed, they moved a lot of their work to other plants. So yes it is a very dangerous game.
- unionsarentgood 9y ago
  At least unions for private companies make a little sense. Unions for public agencies are a drain on society.
- tclancy 9y ago
  Can you provide a little more detail on how the union caused them to leave and not tax incentives from other states?
  - Kocrachon 9y ago
    WA already provides massive tax incentives, and further increased them to get them to stay. To say the massive strike going on at the time had nothing to do with it would be disingenuous.
  - brightball 9y ago
    Pretty sure this didn't help: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-unions-move-to-end-strike/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-unions-move-to-end-strike... > Boeing's value has reportedly fallen by about $5.3 billion since the walkout began and that strikers have lost more than $125 million in wages Followed by this 8 years later... http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/06/news/companies/boeing_strike_begins/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/06/news/companies/boeing_strike... And then this 5 years later... http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/20/news/companies/boeing-strike-threat/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/20/news/companies/boeing-strike... At some point, it's getting ridiculous.
    - tclancy 9y ago
      Unions exercising the one power they have 3x in 15 years (by your timeline; the url dates suggest otherwise) is ridiculous? What should they have done instead?
      - brightball 9y ago
        This was a rejected offer from that 2008 article. The url without a date on it was March 17, 2000. > The company had offered union members raises over the next three years totaling 11% of current pay. Boeing also offered bonuses and pension improvements it said would give the typical worker about $34,000 in additional pay and benefits during that time. When you're given offers like that and rejecting them and it becomes a pattern that the company can expect to cost them billions of dollars every few years...what exactly do you expect company execs to do? Not have backup plans? This is a company that's literally handing out jobs throughout a lot of the worst periods of the US economy...and it warrants constant strikes? Look up some Airbus strikes for comparison. The articles I've seen are strikes over job cuts. There was a German strike at 4 plants that lasted...90 minutes. At some point...yes...it is ridiculous and there are a lot of other people who would be more than happy to have the jobs you're striking over.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
epx 9y ago
Solve a problem and create two?
stale2002 9y ago
The way that you restore balance is that you make it illegal to force people to join them, as it is in many right to work states. If unions are so great, then they can stand on their own. If they end up sucking, then people will leave them.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Except right-to-work laws allow non-union members to freeride. If we truly wanted to restore balance then people opting out of the union wouldn't be able to benefit from any of the union's negotiations. Of course then everyone would join the union so...
  - obstinate 9y ago
    And it's quite hard to do that. Companies tend not to want to negotiate with a union and have a separate compensation structure for non-union employees in the same job families. It's hard to have or benefit from one set of working conditions for union members and one for non-members. IMO, both employees and employers should be free to form what groups they please and negotiate what contracts they will. This includes contracts that forbid an employer from hiring non-union workers. But there should also be no law mandating such a provision. Of course subject to government regulation that supersedes contracts (health and safety, human rights provisions, others).
  - stale2002 9y ago
    I don't want your union negotiation benefits, though. I don't want to be covered by the union contract. You should be able to negotiate with your own group of people to get certain benefits, and I should be able to negotiate on my own. And then we could see who really gets the better deal. Personally I am confident that my own deal would be better, but I have no problem with other people deciding for themselves that they would prefer whatever deal that a union was able to negotiate.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

by jorvi 9y ago

Kocrachon 9y ago

Living in Washington State, I've watched the Machinist Union almost cause Boeing to completely leave the state of Washington, and even though Boeing stayed, they moved a lot of their work to other plants. So yes it is a very dangerous game.

unionsarentgood 9y ago
At least unions for private companies make a little sense. Unions for public agencies are a drain on society.
tclancy 9y ago
Can you provide a little more detail on how the union caused them to leave and not tax incentives from other states?
- Kocrachon 9y ago
  WA already provides massive tax incentives, and further increased them to get them to stay. To say the massive strike going on at the time had nothing to do with it would be disingenuous.
- brightball 9y ago
  Pretty sure this didn't help: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-unions-move-to-end-strike/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-unions-move-to-end-strike... > Boeing's value has reportedly fallen by about $5.3 billion since the walkout began and that strikers have lost more than $125 million in wages Followed by this 8 years later... http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/06/news/companies/boeing_strike_begins/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/06/news/companies/boeing_strike... And then this 5 years later... http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/20/news/companies/boeing-strike-threat/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/20/news/companies/boeing-strike... At some point, it's getting ridiculous.
  - tclancy 9y ago
    Unions exercising the one power they have 3x in 15 years (by your timeline; the url dates suggest otherwise) is ridiculous? What should they have done instead?
    - brightball 9y ago
      This was a rejected offer from that 2008 article. The url without a date on it was March 17, 2000. > The company had offered union members raises over the next three years totaling 11% of current pay. Boeing also offered bonuses and pension improvements it said would give the typical worker about $34,000 in additional pay and benefits during that time. When you're given offers like that and rejecting them and it becomes a pattern that the company can expect to cost them billions of dollars every few years...what exactly do you expect company execs to do? Not have backup plans? This is a company that's literally handing out jobs throughout a lot of the worst periods of the US economy...and it warrants constant strikes? Look up some Airbus strikes for comparison. The articles I've seen are strikes over job cuts. There was a German strike at 4 plants that lasted...90 minutes. At some point...yes...it is ridiculous and there are a lot of other people who would be more than happy to have the jobs you're striking over.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

epx 9y ago

Solve a problem and create two?

stale2002 9y ago

The way that you restore balance is that you make it illegal to force people to join them, as it is in many right to work states. If unions are so great, then they can stand on their own. If they end up sucking, then people will leave them.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Except right-to-work laws allow non-union members to freeride. If we truly wanted to restore balance then people opting out of the union wouldn't be able to benefit from any of the union's negotiations. Of course then everyone would join the union so...
- obstinate 9y ago
  And it's quite hard to do that. Companies tend not to want to negotiate with a union and have a separate compensation structure for non-union employees in the same job families. It's hard to have or benefit from one set of working conditions for union members and one for non-members. IMO, both employees and employers should be free to form what groups they please and negotiate what contracts they will. This includes contracts that forbid an employer from hiring non-union workers. But there should also be no law mandating such a provision. Of course subject to government regulation that supersedes contracts (health and safety, human rights provisions, others).
- stale2002 9y ago
  I don't want your union negotiation benefits, though. I don't want to be covered by the union contract. You should be able to negotiate with your own group of people to get certain benefits, and I should be able to negotiate on my own. And then we could see who really gets the better deal. Personally I am confident that my own deal would be better, but I have no problem with other people deciding for themselves that they would prefer whatever deal that a union was able to negotiate.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]