11 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > 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. You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary. > Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself, and it represents only your own imagination. > Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs. That's your strawman. You somehow made up this argument that having someone at your side helping you out on your negotiation will somehow force a company to stop hire people to fill the positions they've just opened. Meanwhile, agents are a thing, and having third-party help in your negotiations didn't brought the end to western civilization.
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
    He's using hyperbole, but his arguments are valid in explaining the rationale that some workers feel when considering a union. Some unions are so hawkish that they impose hiring blacklists on affected employers, making membership mandatory instead of voluntary. Additionally, in the rank and file, there's a common fear of union corruption.
    - geezerjay 9y ago
      > Some unions are so hawkish that That hypothetical problem is anecdotal, and assumes that a job seeker has no say in how he is represented. Meanwhile, the whole world is packed with examples of how unions do in fact work for the interests of their associates. For instance, there are companies in Sweden that inform job seekers right at the start of the job application process that they should contact union representatives to help them during the hiring process. This offer is presented to anyone, whether they pay union quotas or not, and anyone decides if they even want to contact the union or not. Do you believe this is a draconian measure imposed by unions on unsuspecting job seekers, or that this is remotely against the best interest of any worker? A union is what you make it out to be. Right now, workers are getting screwed over to the point where HN receives a constant scream of posts on how workers should improve their negotiation skills. Hell, if that's so important then why isn't everyone doing the smart thing to do and delegate that activity to a dedicated third-party representing the worker's best interests and specialized in negotiating job offers and working conditions? It's simply stupid to assume that everyone can pick up an O'Reilly-type book on negotiating job offers and suddenly be able to go head-to-head with a professional negotiator paid to drive down your wage.

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.

geezerjay 9y ago
> 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. You're somehow assuming that forming a union involves forcing everyone to join an organization whose membership is purely voluntary. > Also, does "no impact" include workers paying extra ~$1000/year in union dues That's an imaginary number that you made up yourself, and it represents only your own imagination. > Your comment ignores the other things that workers consider besides wages -- e.g. no jobs. That's your strawman. You somehow made up this argument that having someone at your side helping you out on your negotiation will somehow force a company to stop hire people to fill the positions they've just opened. Meanwhile, agents are a thing, and having third-party help in your negotiations didn't brought the end to western civilization.
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  He's using hyperbole, but his arguments are valid in explaining the rationale that some workers feel when considering a union. Some unions are so hawkish that they impose hiring blacklists on affected employers, making membership mandatory instead of voluntary. Additionally, in the rank and file, there's a common fear of union corruption.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > Some unions are so hawkish that That hypothetical problem is anecdotal, and assumes that a job seeker has no say in how he is represented. Meanwhile, the whole world is packed with examples of how unions do in fact work for the interests of their associates. For instance, there are companies in Sweden that inform job seekers right at the start of the job application process that they should contact union representatives to help them during the hiring process. This offer is presented to anyone, whether they pay union quotas or not, and anyone decides if they even want to contact the union or not. Do you believe this is a draconian measure imposed by unions on unsuspecting job seekers, or that this is remotely against the best interest of any worker? A union is what you make it out to be. Right now, workers are getting screwed over to the point where HN receives a constant scream of posts on how workers should improve their negotiation skills. Hell, if that's so important then why isn't everyone doing the smart thing to do and delegate that activity to a dedicated third-party representing the worker's best interests and specialized in negotiating job offers and working conditions? It's simply stupid to assume that everyone can pick up an O'Reilly-type book on negotiating job offers and suddenly be able to go head-to-head with a professional negotiator paid to drive down your wage.