6 ms·

Ending right to work laws and bringing back unions.

by frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

RHSeeger 9y ago
Of course, that too comes with it's negatives. Unions have both positives and negatives. It's not a simple discussion.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Unions are a counter-balance to corporate power which helps to preserve the power of labor. That unions have some negatives does not mean we should not have them.
- Frondo 9y ago
  What is an alternative to unions that gives workers some power in the relationship between worker and employer?
  - te_platt 9y ago
    The ability to get another job.
    - lovich 9y ago
      And when companies coordinate to prevent that? It doesn't even have to be explicit behind the scenes coordination. Companies that base your salary offer off of your previously salary are still coordinating even though they don't plan it
    - vkou 9y ago
      A company with 100 employees losing an employee costs them ~1% of their revenue until a replacement can be found. An employee losing their employer loses ~100% of their revenue until a replacement is found. The two are nowhere near equivalent. On the other hand, when employees unionize, a company with 100 employees stands to lose ~100% of their revenue if employees choose to strike. That puts the two sides on an even footing.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Corporations have both positives and negatives, yet somehow there's never a debate over whether we should have those. It's very strange to me that employees organizing and working together is so controversial, but management doing the same thing is not only expected but we can't even envision anything else.
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    I think one reason it seems so strange is that it is sort of a mis-characterization/failure of communication that easily happens in politics. There is nothing wrong with unions in principle, but once someone has written into law exactly what a union is, then the possibility for mistakes and unintended negative consequences exist. When the UAW were fighting for better wages and conditions in bygone days, I don't think many at that time thought the same laws would contribute to GM declaring bankruptcy and needing to be bailed out by all 300+ million Americans, who were never involved in any of the bad decisions made. And reasonable people can quibble about who shoulders more of the blame, but one can't deny that American labor costs were significantly higher than foreign competition and were largely impossible to adjust. Unions today need better leaders, who realize that the future is in collaborating across national borders with their brethren at all global corporations. The United States simply cannot enforce its own labor laws in China or any other proud nation. Workers created unions themselves, they did not need government to do it for them...which is good because neither the US nor Russia or China rules the whole world.
mcgarnagle 9y ago
When the notion of a union was proposed to the management at Fierra, the owners spread the word that if the workers began forming one, everyone would be immediately fired and replaced. source: My grandmother used to work at this very factory when we first moved to Canada. She worked for about 5-6 years, starting in the 90s. When you are new to a country, don't speak the language or know the laws well, you don't have as much power as you think.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  An industry based union would make them more difficult to replace, increasing the price of labor
benlorenzetti 9y ago
I don't really get this line of thinking, it just seems like a denial of globalization, automation, and economics. Instead of helping the workers it more seeks to punish American capitalists--including all the people like me who hope to retire in the future with investments that grow. When the rest of the world is developed enough that a union could span the entire globe, then this would at least be logical again. As an electrical engineer working for the company, two of my assigned jobs were 1) evaluating the cost effectiveness of replacing all the forklift drivers with robots and 2) installing new equipment to eliminate repetitive lifting roles on the packaging lines. I was actually surprised how much cheaper the human forklift drivers were than the robots (mostly this was because we had really efficient, hardworking drivers and the robots needed special accommodations and could not handle all special cases). I left the company because it was very demoralizing working alongside people who you were being paid to replace. But make no mistake, the autonomous forklifts would have been cheaper if the company had to employ the drivers directly, taking the hit to their safety record and bottom line. There are other ideas for increasing the bargaining position of American labor and reducing capital inequality. For example, plugging up the mechanisms by which trade deficit capital returns to the United States (through economics--not by law, so by increasing property taxes in cities with big foreign investment, reducing the federal debt, switching to regional taxation system, etc.). Another example, if economics, as a collective school of thought, could reconsider its obsession with monetary inflation and consider if technology driven deflation is actually a bad thing. A worker getting a deflationary pay raise would be in a much stronger bargaining position and would actually be claiming some of the rewards of all the technological advances of capitalism by default.
- bildung 9y ago
  > I don't really get this line of thinking, it just seems like a denial of globalization, automation, and economics. So what is the qualitative change in these three factors that changed so much in your opinion? Globalization was important for the US from its very inception (example: European price and production developments where a big factor in the Panic of 1819[1]). And productivity growth has been more or less constant over the last 100+ years [2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819 [2] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*i79QfQsgSagYNZl17oEm8g.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*i79QfQsgSagYNZl17o... [3] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
jdboyd 9y ago
How would temp agency workers having collective bargaining with the temp agency (their employer) prevent Fiera from switching to a non-unionized temp agency?
rukittenme 9y ago
Why? All the law does is prevent compulsory membership in a union. That seems like a good thing.
- vkou 9y ago
  No, because it introduces the free rider problem. It creates an incentive for any particular union member to defect from the union, because they no longer have to pay fees, but are legally entitled to whatever the union negotiated for. It's like a law that prevents compulsory membership in a fire insurance plan, but also allows you to sign up for retroactive fire insurance after your house burns down. It's sole purpose is union-busting.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    > but are legally entitled to whatever the union negotiated for. How so? Wouldn't they be independently discussing their salary with management at that point? What law guarantees that non union workers get the same benefits as union workers?
    - vkou 9y ago
      Thanks to the National Labor Relations Act, if a union represents >50% of employees of a company, then the union's negotiations apply to all employees. So, you have an incentive to not pay union dues, as whatever the union negotiates for, you will get without paying a penny. Not to mention that if there's a members-only agreement, where members get more pay/benefits/etc, this creates a reason for an employer to not hire union. Due to this, unions can't really fight for members-only agreements.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        Sounds like the National Labor Relations Act needs to be repealed as opposed to right to work laws.
        9y ago
KekDemaga 9y ago
I'd prefer not being forced into a union myself if my compensation was linked to the productivity of my peers I'd make much less.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I'd prefer all sorts of things that I don't get. See this portion of my other comment: Right-to-work is about ending free association, it's odd to paint unions as anti-free association. In an ordinary market environment a widget company could set up an exclusive supply deal with a plastic company where plastic is supplied at a set rate under certain agreements and we'd all be fine with that. But if we switch out "plastic" for "labor" and "plastic company" for "labor union" then suddenly we outlaw it. The idea that you think government should interfere in the contractual dealings of labor-supply in our market but not commodity-supply describes the hypocrisy.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Workers could form a corporation and enter into such a deal if they wished, this is about forcing new employees to use the contract other employees have negotiated.

Ending right to work laws and bringing back unions.

RHSeeger 9y ago

Of course, that too comes with it's negatives. Unions have both positives and negatives. It's not a simple discussion.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Unions are a counter-balance to corporate power which helps to preserve the power of labor. That unions have some negatives does not mean we should not have them.
Frondo 9y ago
What is an alternative to unions that gives workers some power in the relationship between worker and employer?
- te_platt 9y ago
  The ability to get another job.
  - lovich 9y ago
    And when companies coordinate to prevent that? It doesn't even have to be explicit behind the scenes coordination. Companies that base your salary offer off of your previously salary are still coordinating even though they don't plan it
  - vkou 9y ago
    A company with 100 employees losing an employee costs them ~1% of their revenue until a replacement can be found. An employee losing their employer loses ~100% of their revenue until a replacement is found. The two are nowhere near equivalent. On the other hand, when employees unionize, a company with 100 employees stands to lose ~100% of their revenue if employees choose to strike. That puts the two sides on an even footing.
mikeash 9y ago
Corporations have both positives and negatives, yet somehow there's never a debate over whether we should have those. It's very strange to me that employees organizing and working together is so controversial, but management doing the same thing is not only expected but we can't even envision anything else.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  I think one reason it seems so strange is that it is sort of a mis-characterization/failure of communication that easily happens in politics. There is nothing wrong with unions in principle, but once someone has written into law exactly what a union is, then the possibility for mistakes and unintended negative consequences exist. When the UAW were fighting for better wages and conditions in bygone days, I don't think many at that time thought the same laws would contribute to GM declaring bankruptcy and needing to be bailed out by all 300+ million Americans, who were never involved in any of the bad decisions made. And reasonable people can quibble about who shoulders more of the blame, but one can't deny that American labor costs were significantly higher than foreign competition and were largely impossible to adjust. Unions today need better leaders, who realize that the future is in collaborating across national borders with their brethren at all global corporations. The United States simply cannot enforce its own labor laws in China or any other proud nation. Workers created unions themselves, they did not need government to do it for them...which is good because neither the US nor Russia or China rules the whole world.

mcgarnagle 9y ago

When the notion of a union was proposed to the management at Fierra, the owners spread the word that if the workers began forming one, everyone would be immediately fired and replaced. source: My grandmother used to work at this very factory when we first moved to Canada. She worked for about 5-6 years, starting in the 90s. When you are new to a country, don't speak the language or know the laws well, you don't have as much power as you think.

mrguyorama 9y ago
An industry based union would make them more difficult to replace, increasing the price of labor

benlorenzetti 9y ago

I don't really get this line of thinking, it just seems like a denial of globalization, automation, and economics. Instead of helping the workers it more seeks to punish American capitalists--including all the people like me who hope to retire in the future with investments that grow. When the rest of the world is developed enough that a union could span the entire globe, then this would at least be logical again. As an electrical engineer working for the company, two of my assigned jobs were 1) evaluating the cost effectiveness of replacing all the forklift drivers with robots and 2) installing new equipment to eliminate repetitive lifting roles on the packaging lines. I was actually surprised how much cheaper the human forklift drivers were than the robots (mostly this was because we had really efficient, hardworking drivers and the robots needed special accommodations and could not handle all special cases). I left the company because it was very demoralizing working alongside people who you were being paid to replace. But make no mistake, the autonomous forklifts would have been cheaper if the company had to employ the drivers directly, taking the hit to their safety record and bottom line. There are other ideas for increasing the bargaining position of American labor and reducing capital inequality. For example, plugging up the mechanisms by which trade deficit capital returns to the United States (through economics--not by law, so by increasing property taxes in cities with big foreign investment, reducing the federal debt, switching to regional taxation system, etc.). Another example, if economics, as a collective school of thought, could reconsider its obsession with monetary inflation and consider if technology driven deflation is actually a bad thing. A worker getting a deflationary pay raise would be in a much stronger bargaining position and would actually be claiming some of the rewards of all the technological advances of capitalism by default.

bildung 9y ago
> I don't really get this line of thinking, it just seems like a denial of globalization, automation, and economics. So what is the qualitative change in these three factors that changed so much in your opinion? Globalization was important for the US from its very inception (example: European price and production developments where a big factor in the Panic of 1819[1]). And productivity growth has been more or less constant over the last 100+ years [2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819 [2] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*i79QfQsgSagYNZl17oEm8g.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*i79QfQsgSagYNZl17o... [3] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

jdboyd 9y ago

How would temp agency workers having collective bargaining with the temp agency (their employer) prevent Fiera from switching to a non-unionized temp agency?

rukittenme 9y ago

Why? All the law does is prevent compulsory membership in a union. That seems like a good thing.

vkou 9y ago
No, because it introduces the free rider problem. It creates an incentive for any particular union member to defect from the union, because they no longer have to pay fees, but are legally entitled to whatever the union negotiated for. It's like a law that prevents compulsory membership in a fire insurance plan, but also allows you to sign up for retroactive fire insurance after your house burns down. It's sole purpose is union-busting.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  > but are legally entitled to whatever the union negotiated for. How so? Wouldn't they be independently discussing their salary with management at that point? What law guarantees that non union workers get the same benefits as union workers?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Thanks to the National Labor Relations Act, if a union represents >50% of employees of a company, then the union's negotiations apply to all employees. So, you have an incentive to not pay union dues, as whatever the union negotiates for, you will get without paying a penny. Not to mention that if there's a members-only agreement, where members get more pay/benefits/etc, this creates a reason for an employer to not hire union. Due to this, unions can't really fight for members-only agreements.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      Sounds like the National Labor Relations Act needs to be repealed as opposed to right to work laws.
      - 9y ago

KekDemaga 9y ago

I'd prefer not being forced into a union myself if my compensation was linked to the productivity of my peers I'd make much less.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I'd prefer all sorts of things that I don't get. See this portion of my other comment: Right-to-work is about ending free association, it's odd to paint unions as anti-free association. In an ordinary market environment a widget company could set up an exclusive supply deal with a plastic company where plastic is supplied at a set rate under certain agreements and we'd all be fine with that. But if we switch out "plastic" for "labor" and "plastic company" for "labor union" then suddenly we outlaw it. The idea that you think government should interfere in the contractual dealings of labor-supply in our market but not commodity-supply describes the hypocrisy.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  Workers could form a corporation and enter into such a deal if they wished, this is about forcing new employees to use the contract other employees have negotiated.