5 ms·

Are unions demonised in the US in a similar vain to socialism? i.e. made out to be an evil that don't work despite working quite well in many, many other countr

Are unions demonised in the US in a similar vain to socialism? i.e. made out to be an evil that don't work despite working quite well in many, many other countries? I'm seriously curious about this as I'm quite taken aback at the general hate unions are getting ITT.

tyingq 9y ago
Depends on who you ask. Airline pilot forums, for example, would have a much different stance. The HN crowd probably thinks the current meritocracy is good enough, so unions seem like an unneeded expense. You tend to appreciate it more if it might have direct benefits to you. I suspect if you asked people who were laid off, or older developers experiencing age discrimination, you would see a different distribution of opinions. There's also some history in the US of unions lining their own pockets, shady deals, coercing membership, organized crime connections, etc. None of it very recent though.
- briandear 9y ago
  None recent? I would beg to differ. Here's one example: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/10/corruption-chicago https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/10/c...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Okay, so nothing of the magnitude of the Hoffa days that's recent...when most unions were corrupt. Sure, you'll find some notable issues with any collection of large organization of any type. My point is that some opinions on unions are still based on that era.
ugh123 9y ago
Its political in the U.S. Business owners (large and small) tend to view them unfavorably and they tend to be Republicans. Democrats strive to support most unions since their members are largely working-class, blue collar constituents. Part of that has changed with Trump's election as he campaigned harder among those groups than did Clinton. Public unions (police, fire, gov't workers, some teaching unions) are usually not politicized this way.
grecy 9y ago
One of the major goals of the USA is to make corporations (and their owners) obscenely rich. Unions are one tiny attempt by the common-man to even that out a fraction, and is therefore evil by definition, because it goes against the above point. Anyone against unions is either a) an obscenely rich owner who doesn't want to share, or b) has been tricked into thinking making rich people richer will help them in some extremely obscure way.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  people can be critical of unions without being a puppet or a "wealthy bourgeoisie". Not everything is so black-and-white, especially politics.
  - grecy 9y ago
    Can you please give some examples of other types of people that are critical of unions, and why they are critical ?
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      I'm critical of unions for a number of reasons, including artificially preventing automation and technological progress in order to prevent redundancies and pointless mandates like ensuring that only union appointed electricians can plug in a socket. If you think the only people critical of unions are your stereotypical evil capitalists then you might want to look up the arguments people make against them - one can't defend a position if they don't know the opposition's arguments.
      - grecy 9y ago
        > one can't defend a position if they don't know the opposition's arguments. I agree, that's why I asked for other people's augments against them. And of course you are correct, unions are not perfect and sometimes are downright stupid (your two examples). Just because something is not perfect is not a reason to not have it. It's just a good reason to improve it. On the whole, unions (including their sometimes stupid rules) are better that not unions, and I have never seen a compelling argument otherwise (other than the two reasons I mentioned in my original post, which are not valid)
neonhomer 9y ago
Having second-hand knowledge of a public teachers union I heard more many stories of terrible workers who could never get fired. That is the reason I'm not very supportive of unions.
- DrScump 9y ago
  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/31/the-rubber-room http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/31/the-rubber-room
ohitsdom 9y ago
I'm in the US. I get that on paper unions are good, but I've always heard bad things about them. Recent anecdotes/experience I've encountered: - Factory layoffs HAD to be done by seniority rather than merit. We knowingly laid off top performers, just because they were newer to the company (due to union contract rules). - Vendors at a tech conference got in trouble for moving their display tables a few feet because that was supposed to be done by union workers. - Promotions and raises strongly tied to seniority, less flexibility.
- reustle 9y ago
  I see a lot of the seniority stuff in Japan. I have friends who are top performers in their department yet are stuck making copies for hours for their seniors due to their age. Nobody dares to question it.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Can you come up with an objective definition of "merit" that the company can't game in order to fire the most active union members and break the whole thing apart? IME seniority and political patronage is basically how a lot (if not most) companies promote too - under the guise of being purely concerned about objective performance of course.
- mugrimm 9y ago
  The company has a say in each of these events, it just chooses to not use it. These are the kinds of things that occur in negotiations. The issue is they have to give something to. For example, if you want layoffs performed by merit, you'd need a union board to verify those metrics and agree to them, with the addition of a bonus for those who performed well enough to stay or some stock in the company. Vendors moving stuff is a bit harder because if they break some shit, the union will be forced to cover them by law despite the fact their people had nothing to do with it. They'd probably relax it if their company paid for insurance that covered anyone and everyone doing work on the premises. Promotions and raises can again have more company input but the union would want more money for people who are promoted. They choose not to pay it and deal with the system as is.
eagsalazar2 9y ago
It is way more nuanced than that. In general I support unions but police unions are one example of unions that have largely become protection cartels for police misbehavior, holding entire regions hostage to their agendas with the political power they have to make or break governors, mayors, city council members, etc.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
The part of I don't like is that unions are given monopoly status within the company. Most of the unions I've seen aren't voluntary. When I was in grad school, I was forced to pay dues into the union. I don't like that. I think there should be as many unions as employees like. I don't understand how the union can be understood to be negotiating on my behalf if I can't choose not to have them negotiate on my behalf. Once the union has negotiated a budget for itself, it has an independent mandatee to sustain itself, which is sort of detached from any selective pressures. If I'm a bad employee, I get fired. If the company is bad, it goes bankrupt. If a union behaves badly, the consequences are indirect. A bad union only gets its comeuppance if the company goes under. Because the selective pressure on it is indirect, evolution can't happen within regimes, it can only happen when union workers transfer (or don't) organizational knowledge into a new host company. Basically, like a virus. It's just weird to have an entity that doesn't face any consequences. To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. If you have any leverage, you can use it. If you don't have any leverage why would the union fare any better?
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. He'll identify the key players and throw them a bone and tell the rest to go ahead and quit, maybe even sue them as an example. The whole point of a union is that it can't be defeated by divide-and-conquer: it provides a reasonable counter-balance to the amount of power wielded by the employer. Instead of the threat of a few people quitting, their biggest leverage is "there'll be work stoppage"
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  >> I think there should be as many unions as employees like. I don't know enough to speak to the 'being forced to pay dues' point but having as many unions as employees want defeats the purpose of a union. You need everyone to come together as one to have any power. Have multiple unions and the company can play them off against eachother. >> To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. If you have any leverage, you can use it. If you don't have any leverage why would the union fare any better? If people that work on the production line doing unskilled tasks got together and complained about safety and refused to work until it was fixed the company could easily fire them and hire another bunch of people tomorrow. If the union comes to the company with the issue on their behalf the company has to listen because the union members will include skilled workers too and they company can't afford to lose them.
mohaine 9y ago
The unions just got a little too powerful here and then abused their power. Second hand things I've heard: (I know the people who saw these firsthand) 1) Detroit had rooms were extra workers would just watch TV all day. It they didn't show they could be fired but as long as they did they were kept on the books. The jobs were in the contract and the union wouldn't let them go away. 2) The lines had been designed to be run by 4 people each but they kept 5 for years just keep the union happy. A good company would buy these workers out or just let attrition take its course but they had to restaff at this level for years. This was finally solved by a strike where the replacement non-union, lightly trained office workers set 6 straight shifts of new plant output records. 3) A general sand bagging to keep worker count up. i.e. if you get done early, sleep/hide in your work truck, but you can only park it at these type of locations so it looks ok. Your scheduled route WILL take 8 hours, even if it only takes 5 after your first month. This is very common, even more so in cost plus government contracts where even the company likes it. Every extra $ is that much more profit. I wish unions had better reputation but at least in the US it one of (mostly) lazy workers making sure they get their cut while doing as little as possible. I know this isn't 100% true but there is a kernel of truth.

tyingq 9y ago

Depends on who you ask. Airline pilot forums, for example, would have a much different stance. The HN crowd probably thinks the current meritocracy is good enough, so unions seem like an unneeded expense. You tend to appreciate it more if it might have direct benefits to you. I suspect if you asked people who were laid off, or older developers experiencing age discrimination, you would see a different distribution of opinions. There's also some history in the US of unions lining their own pockets, shady deals, coercing membership, organized crime connections, etc. None of it very recent though.

briandear 9y ago
None recent? I would beg to differ. Here's one example: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/10/corruption-chicago https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/10/c...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tyingq 9y ago
  Okay, so nothing of the magnitude of the Hoffa days that's recent...when most unions were corrupt. Sure, you'll find some notable issues with any collection of large organization of any type. My point is that some opinions on unions are still based on that era.

ugh123 9y ago

Its political in the U.S. Business owners (large and small) tend to view them unfavorably and they tend to be Republicans. Democrats strive to support most unions since their members are largely working-class, blue collar constituents. Part of that has changed with Trump's election as he campaigned harder among those groups than did Clinton. Public unions (police, fire, gov't workers, some teaching unions) are usually not politicized this way.

grecy 9y ago

One of the major goals of the USA is to make corporations (and their owners) obscenely rich. Unions are one tiny attempt by the common-man to even that out a fraction, and is therefore evil by definition, because it goes against the above point. Anyone against unions is either a) an obscenely rich owner who doesn't want to share, or b) has been tricked into thinking making rich people richer will help them in some extremely obscure way.

beaconstudios 9y ago
people can be critical of unions without being a puppet or a "wealthy bourgeoisie". Not everything is so black-and-white, especially politics.
- grecy 9y ago
  Can you please give some examples of other types of people that are critical of unions, and why they are critical ?
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    I'm critical of unions for a number of reasons, including artificially preventing automation and technological progress in order to prevent redundancies and pointless mandates like ensuring that only union appointed electricians can plug in a socket. If you think the only people critical of unions are your stereotypical evil capitalists then you might want to look up the arguments people make against them - one can't defend a position if they don't know the opposition's arguments.
    - grecy 9y ago
      > one can't defend a position if they don't know the opposition's arguments. I agree, that's why I asked for other people's augments against them. And of course you are correct, unions are not perfect and sometimes are downright stupid (your two examples). Just because something is not perfect is not a reason to not have it. It's just a good reason to improve it. On the whole, unions (including their sometimes stupid rules) are better that not unions, and I have never seen a compelling argument otherwise (other than the two reasons I mentioned in my original post, which are not valid)

neonhomer 9y ago

Having second-hand knowledge of a public teachers union I heard more many stories of terrible workers who could never get fired. That is the reason I'm not very supportive of unions.

DrScump 9y ago
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/31/the-rubber-room http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/31/the-rubber-room

ohitsdom 9y ago

I'm in the US. I get that on paper unions are good, but I've always heard bad things about them. Recent anecdotes/experience I've encountered: - Factory layoffs HAD to be done by seniority rather than merit. We knowingly laid off top performers, just because they were newer to the company (due to union contract rules). - Vendors at a tech conference got in trouble for moving their display tables a few feet because that was supposed to be done by union workers. - Promotions and raises strongly tied to seniority, less flexibility.

reustle 9y ago
I see a lot of the seniority stuff in Japan. I have friends who are top performers in their department yet are stuck making copies for hours for their seniors due to their age. Nobody dares to question it.
crdoconnor 9y ago
Can you come up with an objective definition of "merit" that the company can't game in order to fire the most active union members and break the whole thing apart? IME seniority and political patronage is basically how a lot (if not most) companies promote too - under the guise of being purely concerned about objective performance of course.
mugrimm 9y ago
The company has a say in each of these events, it just chooses to not use it. These are the kinds of things that occur in negotiations. The issue is they have to give something to. For example, if you want layoffs performed by merit, you'd need a union board to verify those metrics and agree to them, with the addition of a bonus for those who performed well enough to stay or some stock in the company. Vendors moving stuff is a bit harder because if they break some shit, the union will be forced to cover them by law despite the fact their people had nothing to do with it. They'd probably relax it if their company paid for insurance that covered anyone and everyone doing work on the premises. Promotions and raises can again have more company input but the union would want more money for people who are promoted. They choose not to pay it and deal with the system as is.

eagsalazar2 9y ago

It is way more nuanced than that. In general I support unions but police unions are one example of unions that have largely become protection cartels for police misbehavior, holding entire regions hostage to their agendas with the political power they have to make or break governors, mayors, city council members, etc.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

The part of I don't like is that unions are given monopoly status within the company. Most of the unions I've seen aren't voluntary. When I was in grad school, I was forced to pay dues into the union. I don't like that. I think there should be as many unions as employees like. I don't understand how the union can be understood to be negotiating on my behalf if I can't choose not to have them negotiate on my behalf. Once the union has negotiated a budget for itself, it has an independent mandatee to sustain itself, which is sort of detached from any selective pressures. If I'm a bad employee, I get fired. If the company is bad, it goes bankrupt. If a union behaves badly, the consequences are indirect. A bad union only gets its comeuppance if the company goes under. Because the selective pressure on it is indirect, evolution can't happen within regimes, it can only happen when union workers transfer (or don't) organizational knowledge into a new host company. Basically, like a virus. It's just weird to have an entity that doesn't face any consequences. To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. If you have any leverage, you can use it. If you don't have any leverage why would the union fare any better?

sangnoir 9y ago
> Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. He'll identify the key players and throw them a bone and tell the rest to go ahead and quit, maybe even sue them as an example. The whole point of a union is that it can't be defeated by divide-and-conquer: it provides a reasonable counter-balance to the amount of power wielded by the employer. Instead of the threat of a few people quitting, their biggest leverage is "there'll be work stoppage"
k-mcgrady 9y ago
>> I think there should be as many unions as employees like. I don't know enough to speak to the 'being forced to pay dues' point but having as many unions as employees want defeats the purpose of a union. You need everyone to come together as one to have any power. Have multiple unions and the company can play them off against eachother. >> To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. If you have any leverage, you can use it. If you don't have any leverage why would the union fare any better? If people that work on the production line doing unskilled tasks got together and complained about safety and refused to work until it was fixed the company could easily fire them and hire another bunch of people tomorrow. If the union comes to the company with the issue on their behalf the company has to listen because the union members will include skilled workers too and they company can't afford to lose them.

mohaine 9y ago

The unions just got a little too powerful here and then abused their power. Second hand things I've heard: (I know the people who saw these firsthand) 1) Detroit had rooms were extra workers would just watch TV all day. It they didn't show they could be fired but as long as they did they were kept on the books. The jobs were in the contract and the union wouldn't let them go away. 2) The lines had been designed to be run by 4 people each but they kept 5 for years just keep the union happy. A good company would buy these workers out or just let attrition take its course but they had to restaff at this level for years. This was finally solved by a strike where the replacement non-union, lightly trained office workers set 6 straight shifts of new plant output records. 3) A general sand bagging to keep worker count up. i.e. if you get done early, sleep/hide in your work truck, but you can only park it at these type of locations so it looks ok. Your scheduled route WILL take 8 hours, even if it only takes 5 after your first month. This is very common, even more so in cost plus government contracts where even the company likes it. Every extra $ is that much more profit. I wish unions had better reputation but at least in the US it one of (mostly) lazy workers making sure they get their cut while doing as little as possible. I know this isn't 100% true but there is a kernel of truth.