3 ms·

You're looking for historians or economic historians and I would be really interested if you know of any off the top of your head who believe that the labor mov

You're looking for historians or economic historians and I would be really interested if you know of any off the top of your head who believe that the labor movement didn't actually help labor. Modern corporations sell a lot of anti-union kool aid as well. Unions are not there to be "good people" any more than a CEO is supposed to be a "good person." Unions are there to balance corporate power. >Coincidence or causality? It's impossible to say without knowledge of the country. (not that I want you to dox yourself.)

conanbatt 9y ago
> You're looking for historians or economic historians and I would be really interested if you know of any off the top of your head who believe that the labor movement didn't actually help labor. I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of examples of great economic prosperity without unions and labor laws. It is of common occurrence for a political movement to claim its actions were responsible for effects already happening. But also, there is a confounding effect: unions were a reasonable response to the acts of state that used violence and coercion against employees. The FBI busting strikes, or the military shooting down workers protests. Unionization was vital to revert that. But that doesn't mean everything they said or did was the best for the workers. The ability to unionize is a very different thing that the passing of a law that describes how labor should be. Making unions illegal is an act of oppression. Forcing workers to be part of the union is another act of oppression. But the case in point is about the addition of a work law that involves the restriction of how much time an employers can bid of the employee. I am not yet convinced that it was unions that raised wages so it was possible to raise salaries that covered working 16 hours to 12. I think that was already happening, and the protests and unions of the time were at best accelerating that transition.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  You have obviously never tried to form a union. I have and I did it in a country where it is legal to do so. Our union took over 10 years of very tough struggle in addition to our normal paid work before the company felt enough pressure to sign a contract with us. Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us. And we are privileged workers compared with most. Most people couldn't afford to take the risks we did or afford to put that much of their spare time into organising a union. Your views and understanding of this issue are trash and clearly come from a place of never having to worry about your job or livelihood.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > You have obviously never tried to form a union. Nope, I've only been screwed by unions my entire life as a worker with mandatory unionization and a consumer with import restrictions and service outages. > Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us. That is true for any desire. If the government gave me anything for granted, then I wouldnt have to work for it at all. The question about the precarity of the market you were/are is completely out of my knowledge, but I could argue that what you needed was a way to make the company responsible for the accidents and the health problems that arise from that work, or have some sort of work insurance that would align the incentives of the employers and the employee(make safer work spaces to reduce insurance claims). That is a very reasonable thing to ask of the government. > Your views and understanding of this issue are trash Compelling.

conanbatt 9y ago

> You're looking for historians or economic historians and I would be really interested if you know of any off the top of your head who believe that the labor movement didn't actually help labor. I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of examples of great economic prosperity without unions and labor laws. It is of common occurrence for a political movement to claim its actions were responsible for effects already happening. But also, there is a confounding effect: unions were a reasonable response to the acts of state that used violence and coercion against employees. The FBI busting strikes, or the military shooting down workers protests. Unionization was vital to revert that. But that doesn't mean everything they said or did was the best for the workers. The ability to unionize is a very different thing that the passing of a law that describes how labor should be. Making unions illegal is an act of oppression. Forcing workers to be part of the union is another act of oppression. But the case in point is about the addition of a work law that involves the restriction of how much time an employers can bid of the employee. I am not yet convinced that it was unions that raised wages so it was possible to raise salaries that covered working 16 hours to 12. I think that was already happening, and the protests and unions of the time were at best accelerating that transition.

kiliantics 9y ago
You have obviously never tried to form a union. I have and I did it in a country where it is legal to do so. Our union took over 10 years of very tough struggle in addition to our normal paid work before the company felt enough pressure to sign a contract with us. Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us. And we are privileged workers compared with most. Most people couldn't afford to take the risks we did or afford to put that much of their spare time into organising a union. Your views and understanding of this issue are trash and clearly come from a place of never having to worry about your job or livelihood.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > You have obviously never tried to form a union. Nope, I've only been screwed by unions my entire life as a worker with mandatory unionization and a consumer with import restrictions and service outages. > Now we finally have some protections against precarity that we didn't have before. But we could have saved ourselves a lot of hardship if the government had just guaranteed them to us. That is true for any desire. If the government gave me anything for granted, then I wouldnt have to work for it at all. The question about the precarity of the market you were/are is completely out of my knowledge, but I could argue that what you needed was a way to make the company responsible for the accidents and the health problems that arise from that work, or have some sort of work insurance that would align the incentives of the employers and the employee(make safer work spaces to reduce insurance claims). That is a very reasonable thing to ask of the government. > Your views and understanding of this issue are trash Compelling.