4 ms·

>This problem is mitigated with the help of an organized worker force, [...]. Therefore are able to get much better deals than the average worker acting alone.

by jasode 9y ago

>This problem is mitigated with the help of an organized worker force, [...]. Therefore are able to get much better deals than the average worker acting alone. Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control. E.g. A $15/hour worker considering a union weighs the possibilities: a raise of wages to $20/hour or a reduction to $0/hour because there are no jobs at all. That's the complicated calculation. Union representation can negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement to raise wages but a union can't guarantee the existence of the jobs[1] to pay those wages. Many employees know this which is why they reject unions. UAW has tried to unionize workers at Toyota in Kentucky for decades and failed. Nissan workers in Mississippi just rejected a union vote last month. FedEx Freight drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania recently voted and decertified their union in July 2017 after voting for it in 2014. Some workers genuinely feel a union will make their economic lives worse. The unions' promises of better wages mean nothing if the plant closes and workers weigh that possibility when rejecting union representation. What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers? [1] examples: Seattle union can't stop Boeing from locating the new 787 Dreamliner factory in South Carolina with no unions. Steelworkers union in Indianapolis doesn't stop Rexnard from eliminating $25/hour jobs which cost more than $3/hour jobs in Mexico. Nabisco (Oreo cookies, etc) moves production to Mexico instead of keeping the higher wage union jobs in Chicago. The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens.

emodendroket 9y ago
If you're interested in the topic, Jane McAlevey, a labor organizer, has done a lot of interviews (and written a book I haven't read) detailing her theories of why unions have become less effective and less appealing to workers, as well as what she thinks they can do.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
And in states with robust worker protection laws the benefits of a union are less valuable.
geezerjay 9y ago
> Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control. If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem. A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages. The odds of a negotiation between a candidate and a HR representative benefiting the candidate are fare more favorable to the candidate if he has at his side someone who is informed about the company's hiring practices and salaries and has a vested interest in improving salaries paid by the company to his fellow colleagues. If a job seeker goes into a negotiation room alone then this information asymmetry alone is bound to screw him over during negotiations. The presence of a union representative is very effective at mitigating this problem.
- geodel 9y ago
  That assumes companies will not try to cut separate deals with unions which are worse for workers.
- jasode 9y ago
  >If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem. I think you're oversimplifying again. Many workers who vote "no" and reject union representation believe that unions create problems for workers including the problem of jobs being moved elsewhere. Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues and the possibility of not having jobs? Many workers don't see the logic in paying more money to make their lives worse. E.g. Why pay my Bakers union rep to play hardball with Nabisco management for high wages of $26/hour so that I end up getting $0/hour? The theoretical "win" of $26/hr becomes a real-world "loss" of no job which pays $0/hour. There are interesting game theory dynamics of "workers vs unions vs management" that your comment ignores. Each party has different leverage and different ultimatums. A bakers union is in a more precarious economic situation than a teachers union. >A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages. Yes, I already stipulated that. Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs. It seems you're not aware of the reasons for workers to deliberately reject unions.
brightball 9y ago
This is entirely accurate. The union has been trying to get workers at Boeing in Charleston to unionize ever since it opened. The workers don't want to unionize. The reason? Well, as it turns out...there are jobs there now that weren't there before. Those jobs could have gone somewhere where the union existed...but didn't. So the people there...pretty happy to have quality jobs from a great company. A company that adds jobs continuously even through a recession...and the union forces a strike every 7 years or so costing the company about $1 billion every time. Union negotiating power is based almost entirely on it's ability to hold the company hostage. It's the job of executives to look out for the best interest of the company and that, just like infrastructure planning, means redundancy. It's the same approach as tax policies or raising minimum wage...it only works if the people involved have no other options.
mattferderer 9y ago
Maybe someone in a union can answer this but from an outsider it appears that unions flatten the salary discrepancy between outstanding performers & poor performers. I see this in education a lot where bad teachers that parents try to avoid end up making the same as the amazing teachers that parents beg to have. The bad teachers don't get removed so new teachers are prevented from getting a job at that school.
- gcb0 9y ago
  that's classical fud against unions. incompetent employers might be good political actors in the company and make more than good employees just fine without unions. unions just help the good, and bad, employees don't have to waste too much time every month fighting for raises.
  - bllguo 9y ago
    this is a barely comprehensible mess. Please, type properly next time.
wruza 9y ago
I'm probably not adding much to discussion after many commenters, but this one rings for me as non capital-oriented citizen: >The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens. Iow, not the one who negotiates wins, but the one who has time on their hands. If workforce "feels" too expensive, average capital can just sit on deposit and wait for new ideas. If worker's salary feels too low, she cannot just sit and wait or requalify for new job quickly. This asymmetry pushes workers down on their wages without a chance to negotiate, because there is nobody to blame. Investments are diversifiable, professions aren't. While capitalism shown world-wide success, it forces everyone to follow only one life style, otherwise you're wasted. Personally, I'm pretty fine with how I live due to the path chosen from the start and personal interests, but I don't like what all this does to "regular" profession workers. People are almost punished for what they liked to do, or simply for the fact they aren't interested in business, aka someone else's sky-high profit wars. Otoh, while theoretical basic income program could buy time for workers, it would also demotivate capital builders more. It seems like pretty thin balance there, if it exists at all.
bcassedy 9y ago
"What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers?" Well aside from these studies that correlate unions with better wages for the economy as a whole?
- brightball 9y ago
  Which studies? I'd like to read them. The key to almost every politically oriented study I've seen isn't what the study includes, but what it leaves out.

by jasode 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago

If you're interested in the topic, Jane McAlevey, a labor organizer, has done a lot of interviews (and written a book I haven't read) detailing her theories of why unions have become less effective and less appealing to workers, as well as what she thinks they can do.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

And in states with robust worker protection laws the benefits of a union are less valuable.

geezerjay 9y ago

> Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control. If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem. A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages. The odds of a negotiation between a candidate and a HR representative benefiting the candidate are fare more favorable to the candidate if he has at his side someone who is informed about the company's hiring practices and salaries and has a vested interest in improving salaries paid by the company to his fellow colleagues. If a job seeker goes into a negotiation room alone then this information asymmetry alone is bound to screw him over during negotiations. The presence of a union representative is very effective at mitigating this problem.

geodel 9y ago
That assumes companies will not try to cut separate deals with unions which are worse for workers.
jasode 9y ago
>If some factors are outside of of the trade union's control then it's also outside of the worker's control. Therefore, forming an union has no impact on the problem. I think you're oversimplifying again. Many workers who vote "no" and reject union representation believe that unions create problems for workers including the problem of jobs being moved elsewhere. Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues and the possibility of not having jobs? Many workers don't see the logic in paying more money to make their lives worse. E.g. Why pay my Bakers union rep to play hardball with Nabisco management for high wages of $26/hour so that I end up getting $0/hour? The theoretical "win" of $26/hr becomes a real-world "loss" of no job which pays $0/hour. There are interesting game theory dynamics of "workers vs unions vs management" that your comment ignores. Each party has different leverage and different ultimatums. A bakers union is in a more precarious economic situation than a teachers union. >A trade union has in fact control over important aspects such as wages. Yes, I already stipulated that. Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs. It seems you're not aware of the reasons for workers to deliberately reject unions.

brightball 9y ago

This is entirely accurate. The union has been trying to get workers at Boeing in Charleston to unionize ever since it opened. The workers don't want to unionize. The reason? Well, as it turns out...there are jobs there now that weren't there before. Those jobs could have gone somewhere where the union existed...but didn't. So the people there...pretty happy to have quality jobs from a great company. A company that adds jobs continuously even through a recession...and the union forces a strike every 7 years or so costing the company about $1 billion every time. Union negotiating power is based almost entirely on it's ability to hold the company hostage. It's the job of executives to look out for the best interest of the company and that, just like infrastructure planning, means redundancy. It's the same approach as tax policies or raising minimum wage...it only works if the people involved have no other options.

mattferderer 9y ago

Maybe someone in a union can answer this but from an outsider it appears that unions flatten the salary discrepancy between outstanding performers & poor performers. I see this in education a lot where bad teachers that parents try to avoid end up making the same as the amazing teachers that parents beg to have. The bad teachers don't get removed so new teachers are prevented from getting a job at that school.

gcb0 9y ago
that's classical fud against unions. incompetent employers might be good political actors in the company and make more than good employees just fine without unions. unions just help the good, and bad, employees don't have to waste too much time every month fighting for raises.
- bllguo 9y ago
  this is a barely comprehensible mess. Please, type properly next time.

wruza 9y ago

I'm probably not adding much to discussion after many commenters, but this one rings for me as non capital-oriented citizen: >The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens. Iow, not the one who negotiates wins, but the one who has time on their hands. If workforce "feels" too expensive, average capital can just sit on deposit and wait for new ideas. If worker's salary feels too low, she cannot just sit and wait or requalify for new job quickly. This asymmetry pushes workers down on their wages without a chance to negotiate, because there is nobody to blame. Investments are diversifiable, professions aren't. While capitalism shown world-wide success, it forces everyone to follow only one life style, otherwise you're wasted. Personally, I'm pretty fine with how I live due to the path chosen from the start and personal interests, but I don't like what all this does to "regular" profession workers. People are almost punished for what they liked to do, or simply for the fact they aren't interested in business, aka someone else's sky-high profit wars. Otoh, while theoretical basic income program could buy time for workers, it would also demotivate capital builders more. It seems like pretty thin balance there, if it exists at all.

bcassedy 9y ago

"What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers?" Well aside from these studies that correlate unions with better wages for the economy as a whole?

brightball 9y ago
Which studies? I'd like to read them. The key to almost every politically oriented study I've seen isn't what the study includes, but what it leaves out.