13 ms·

Organized labor is the only way to combat this kind of abuse. Workers cannot rely on policy makers or corporations to do it for them. Organizing doesn't mean f

by 49531 8y ago

Organized labor is the only way to combat this kind of abuse. Workers cannot rely on policy makers or corporations to do it for them. Organizing doesn't mean forming an official legal union, or joining an already established union (in some cases this might make sense but not always). You can organize mutual aid networks that do things like share salary data and talk about their problems.

iagovar 8y ago
I am affiliated to a trade union in Spain and I find it mostly positive. Most trade unions seem lazy, like just structures of bureaucrats, but this one runs very well. I pay a monthly fee of 15€/month, have access to a labor lawyer and a "resistance box" in case I have to go on strike or something, they match a % of your salary (not remember how much, but in my case it was like 80% of it). They also have a sensible approach on collective agreements. I also have access to more stuff I can't remember now. Sadly this trade union is small, and sectorial, but it very refreshing seen this, because most trade unions in Spain have bad rep.
- 49531 8y ago
  Older unions in the US has a bad rap as well, but I think a lot of that is corporate propaganda to be honest. Like, the idea of having a labor lawyer at your disposal is an incredible benefit to you. I am sure wage theft is a little harder when your employees are armed with legal aid.
  - mgkimsal 8y ago
    had never even thought of that as a feature of unions. i know a couple people selling 'legalshield', and a few people that have bought it. having the ability to contact an attorney for 'now and then' questions, to clear stuff up, or write letters.... $30/month or something like that. Seems similar, and potentially valuable, to have that in a corporate setting, depending on how much $ it would actually run you.
    - tdeck 8y ago
      It seems like a reasonable idea, but personally I wouldn't trust any company that operates as an MLM as Legal Shield apparently does. It's hard to even find good information about such companies given the prevalence of astroturfing by their members.
      - mgkimsal 8y ago
        agree on mlm in general. conceptually, having some basic access to legal specific to workplace law would be a reasonable benefit for union members though.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Also keep in mind HN tends to lean anti-union because techies in general are treated and paid very well, and tend to feel like they don’t need unions.
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      Techies are highly-paid relative to many other workers, but they're being exploited by they're being employers in many of the same ways as their low-wage counterparts, including collusive depression and theft of wages. Death march culture and the Google-Apple wage-fixing scandal should've demonstrated this to everyone.
      - walterbell 8y ago
        LinkedIn paid $6M for unpaid overtime, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137958 > LinkedIn failed to record, account and pay for all hours worked in a workweek, investigators found ... "Off the clock' hours are all too common for the American worker. This practice harms workers, denies them the wages they have rightfully earned and takes away time with families," said Susana Blanco, district director for the division in San Francisco. "We urge all employers, large and small, to review their pay practices to ensure employees know their basic workplace rights and that the commitment to compliance works through all levels of the organization. The department is committed to protecting the rights of workers and leveling the playing field for all law-abiding employers."
    - uiri 8y ago
      I think HN tends to lean anti-union because it is centered around a community of seed investors and entrepreneurs. Unions would work against their interests.
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        The answer seems obvious to me, and that is to have the workers be the investors themselves. In that way, the workers are also the bosses and can collectively decide their future and path forward. Other ways separates the money from the labor. There will always be strife in that organization. Having a worker owned co-op also means that the profits don't go elsewhere - they go back to the people doing the labor.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >but I think a lot of that is corporate propaganda to be honest I think it's both. My best friend makes $31 / hour installing plastic car door clips on an assembly line. That's a ridiculous wage for what he does (literally anyone could do his job.) I'm happy for him and his family, but there's also a negative aspect to labor costing 3-4x what would be competitive in an open market.
    - nickpsecurity 8y ago
      "I'm happy for him and his family, but there's also a negative aspect to labor costing 3-4x what would be competitive in an open market." Id consider such arguments if they applied to CEO's or similarly were reducing corporate expenses on things of questionable value. I find most of the companies that aay they can't pay workers overpay upper management and have a lot of frivilous spending.
      - yomly 8y ago
        This. The levels of expenses paid for senior people in big organizations is insane. A friend recently rented out an apartment in central London to people working for a nonprofit org at £10k per month and this is only scratching the surface of ludicrous corporate expense culture. Meanwhile these upper management say they can't pay their staff a living wage...
        briandear 8y ago
        A non-profit? Lol. Quick way to fix that is to let donors know about those ridiculous expenses. A private for profit company should be able to do whatever it wants because they are competing in a free market. Those high expenses might be justified as part of their strategy to recruit top management talent. Basically, those expenses are paid back by the output of those incurring them. A non-profit on the other hand — they are tax exempt, so taxpayers get to subsidize that 10k apartment.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Those high expenses might be justified as part of their strategy to recruit top management talent. " I really don't buy the argument that normal workers deserve to be paid crap because of "free market", but for some reason executive compensation needs to be amazingly outlandish.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Engineers like efficiency. We think of ourselves as handy generalists who can dive into any task. This necessarily puts us on the side of management regarding rules designed to ensure there is enough work to go around and limit the tasks that workers in specific roles are allowed to do. I’d genuinely take a pay cut to work in a high-functioning environment where workflows and systems are well orchestrated, rather than one where everything is an uphill slog due to arcane make-work rules. This is a character trait particular to tech industry folk, and may explain why we dislike old-school unions so much, even when they may be in our financial best interests.
    - 0x445442 8y ago
      >> I’d genuinely take a pay cut to work in a high-functioning environment where workflows and systems are well orchestrated, rather than one where everything is an uphill slog due to arcane make-work rules. This is a very interesting take and I'm exactly the same way. In fact, I just gave notice last week at my current position so that I could pursue a position with a company that was leaner and where more of my time would be spent on relevant work versus meta work. Fortunately, the complete compensation packages, benefits, insurance, et al. at both places came out to about a wash. My current employer is more secure from an employment perspective but I'm willing to give that up in exchange for "staying in the game" technically and for seeing the fruits of my labor have a more direct impact in the marketplace.
      - late2part 8y ago
        Please do. Many companies pay well and do not have make-work rules. You really really can work at a better place.
  - union_throwaway 8y ago
    I have had many friends who work in fields which required them to join unions in the US (engineering, law enforcement, education, entertainment, etc), and I have never heard anyone say anything positive about them. At best, they suck a few dollars per month from your paycheck. Most commonly, they prevent the bad apples from ever being fired, no matter how blatant their behavior. Or a non-union person is not allowed to do a trivial task (like move a chair) because it's "union work". At worst, if union management decides to make you the target of a witch hunt, they can make it hell to try to find work in that field at any workplace in their jurisdiction. Who protects workers from the union itself? I accept that unions have had a valuable place in society, and they're definitely still good for some things, but I don't believe their poor reputation today is "corporate propaganda". They seem to be one of those types of organizations that have outlived their original purpose, mostly, and now exist to propagate themselves. Ultimately, it's just another power structure. The structure is neither good nor bad. What matters is the people. ("The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.") Like every organization, over time they tend to collect the type of people who take advantage of that power structure.
  - briandear 8y ago
    For less than the cost of a union, you can get legal insurance/pre-paid legal services. It’s possible for people to take care of themselves.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      Is there a difference in power between individual and collective bargaining?
      - briandear 8y ago
        Collective bargaining devalues me as an individual contributor. If my pay is fixed to whatever level the union negotiated for me and those with equal seniority, I can’t get past that wage. My upward mobility is traded for a reduction in downward mobility. I would have less incentive to work harder or go the extra mile. I would have the passion and motivation of a clerk at the department of motor vehicles. You can’t fire me unless I do something really bad and I can’t get a raise unless everyone else also gets a raise. I can’t move employers to seek better wages because I’d lose seniority. Collective bargaining is a life sentence of mediocrity for both a company and individuals. However, for 19th and 20th style assembly line type work where workers are literally interchangeable, then I can understand the appeal of collective bargaining. Some guy turning the same screw all day on an assembly line — there is not much room for “excelling” — you either turn the screw when the next part gets to you, or you don’t. Screw-turning doesn’t really have much opportunity for innovation or extra-mile at the individual level. But for a restaurant worker who might be extra nice to a customer or stay a few minutes late to help make the place extra clean or the kitchen worker who reduces food waste by being more efficient — even those “low” level jobs would be harmed by collective bargaining. Jobs that benefit from collective bargaining are ones with extremely minimal autonomy or require an extremely low skill set: just turn a screw. For jobs that actually require intelligence (emotional or intellectual,) collective bargaining is an insult. Unless of course you are poorly motivated in which case it’s a gift.
        knuththetruth 8y ago
        >Collective bargaining is a life sentence of mediocrity for both a company and individuals. How do you reconcile this opinion with the high-levels of pay and celebrity in the entertainment industry and professional sports? They're all unionized and their bosses make money hand over fist as well.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    I'm sure some of it is propaganda, but I think it's also an artifact of very adversarial management/labor splits that were more common in the past. If management is full of exploitative dicks, it's not surprising that the unions would also think in a zero-sum fashion. There's a fantastic This American Life that I've recommended here before: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 It's on the NUMMI plant. GM's worst plant was shut down; Toyota took it over as part of a joint venture to show GM how to make cars in the Toyota way. The story of the workers and how they change as they work for an employer that treats them with respect is amazing. It definitely made me believe that unions indeed could be shitty. But also, that it's not a one-sided thing, and that other relationships are not just possible, but necessary if we're going to make things that are more useful and reliable than a '79 Chevette.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  What is in your "resistance box"? Sounds a bit sinister.
  - klez 8y ago
    Sounds just like a collective rainy-day fund to afford losing your wage during a strike.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      Sounded like a weapons cache to me! But I was sure it was actually something more reasonable.
  - switch007 8y ago
    I think it was a literal translation of "caja de resistencia". From what I can gather it's a fund, usually managed by the union, to help alleviate financial hardship as a result of workers striking.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - evgen 8y ago
    In the US it is called a 'strike fund.'
- tigershark 8y ago
  Just to put things in perspective, what is your annual salary in a job with a strong trade union? From what I know from Italy I would bet much than 50k euros... And honestly I prefer to have much less job security for much more money in my pocket..
  - briandear 8y ago
    Exactly why I oppose unions. They are bastions of average. I want the opportunity to not be average.
    - detcader 8y ago
      Unions and organized labor will always occur. The incentives for it are inevitable under capitalism. I accept this and would like to see a working economy that is more nuanced than the one implied by "opposing unions".
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Unions have absolutely nothing to do with that, and you know it. Stop with the propaganda.
  - blub 8y ago
    Well that's the point: you are probably young enough, healthy enough and without many obligations, so it's easy for you to accept the lack of job security. But add a chronic health issue or having to take care of a dependant and you'll quickly find out why that job security + decent instead of maximum wage is not such a bad idea.
matchagaucho 8y ago
Agreed... but with the Supreme Court overturning Workers rights to file class action claims to recover lost wages, the ability to organize is under attack.
- briandear 8y ago
  They didn’t overturn that right. They affirmed that when an employee signs something, they are bound by the agreement they signed. Potential employees are free to not sign those agreements. Employees who have signed agreements can’t change their mind and suddenly complain about an agreement they willingly signed. If we eliminated those agreements and exposed companies to increased litigation risk, what would you expect to happen to wages? They’d go down naturally. Let’s pretend companies were bound by French style agreements — wages would quickly drop to French-style wages. American workers have more disposable income that almost every other country. If you want to reduce that disposable income, start allowing class actions. Mind you, employees DO have protection against wage “theft” — that’s already a crime. A simple google search will return dozens of law firms ready to represent a worker who thinks they’ve been wronged. Even arbitration agreements can’t protect against illegal activity. The only people getting paid for class actions are attorneys. The worker doesn’t win anything but maybe a $25 check. Meanwhile their employer has to incur extraordinary expenses. Who pays for that? The workers through lower salaries and customers through higher prices.
  - matchagaucho 8y ago
    4 of the 9 Justices disagree. Minimum wage Workers do not have the time or resources to hire a Lawyer to chase down $100 in withheld overtime. When theft has occurred at a mass scale, such as Amazon Warehouse Workers or UPS Employees... it is far less expensive for the Employer to settle the matter with one collective unit, rather than thousands of individuals. Yes, the Lawyers reap the majority of the benefits, but the judgement takes that penalty into account.
    - Shivetya 8y ago
      Arbitration clauses which the Supremes upheld favor those who cannot afford a lawyer because it guarantees their grievance must be acknowledged and addressed. Now while an outcome favorable to the employee is not always guaranteed nor is one for the employer. Class Action with regards to wage suits is very rare and this was mainly a push by plaintiff attorneys who stood to rake in millions while offering no guarantee of providing a substantive reward for the plaintive. In the end as stated by some the reasoning, the two laws are written as such that binding agreements are truly that, binding. If that needs to change then Congress needs to act.
jdietrich 8y ago
>Workers cannot rely on policy makers The fact that they can't represents a major political failure. Good policies can make a huge difference. Here in the UK, the HMRC (our tax authority) is responsible for enforcing the National Minimum Wage. This makes a great deal of sense. Employers are legally required to report wage payments to HMRC for payroll tax purposes and the HMRC have tremendous institutional capacity for conducting financial investigations. For HMRC, a minimum wage complaint is a twofer - underpaid wages mean less revenue from payroll taxes and is usually a sign of tax evasion. HMRC operate a confidential hotline for reporting violations of the minimum wage law. Where workers need to resolve a complaint, they can access mediation or binding arbitration completely free of charge. There is inevitably the risk of retaliatory action by an employer, but at least employees have the ability to enforce their rights without having to pay for legal representation.
- 49531 8y ago
  The UK also has an explicit party for labor. The US has nothing of the sort. The Democratic party used to be the labor party but as since joined the Republicans as a corporate funded organization. Hard to pass labor laws when your big donors are employers.
- Thlom 8y ago
  Not knowing the UK very well, but you have had and still have strong unions with political representation through the Labour party. If labour isn't organised you will not get good (for the working class) policy. Politics is the formal battle of interests and if labour doesn't show up to the fight, the capital owners wins on walkover.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Our trade unions were kneecapped by Thatcher back in the 80s. A Labour government introduced the minimum wage, but the current Conservative government is progressively increasing it from £6.50 in 2015 to £9 by 2020. Employment tribunals were introduced in 1996 by a Conservative government; a Conservative government introduced relatively high fees in 2013, but this was overturned by the Supreme Court last year. Unions are part of the picture, but they're a reflection of a broader political culture. Trade unions can't turn the electorate socialist, but a socialist electorate can build strong trade unions.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
How about we treat so-called white collar crimes the same as regular crimes? In this case, theft is theft. If you can't pay a fine as pinishment for robbing a bank, why can you do it for something like wage theft? Fines are a slap on the wrist. But take away freedom from the guilty and things will change. Quickly.
- the8472 8y ago
  Game-theoretic concerns. You don't want to collapse the hierarchy of deterrance, otherwise you'll have "might as well murder them to hide the evidence of my previous crimes" situation. Additionally the difference in visibility and number of people who are in a theoretical position to commit theft vs. those who are in a position to withhold wages might have an impact since it's probably easier to go after the latter after the fact while you have to rely more on deterrence for the former.
- Kuiper 8y ago
  If you can't pay a fine as pinishment for robbing a bank, why can you do it for something like wage theft? Robbery is a violent crime (robbery, by definition, consists of using force or threat of force/intimidation) that places members of the public in danger. For example, last month there was a Nigerian bank robbery last month where bank robbers armed with assault rifles and got into a gun battle with police officers that left 16 people dead. [1] Now, you could make the argument that running around with an assault rifle and firing at people is its own crime, but when you walk into a bank and hand the teller a note that says "Give me all the money in the vault," you are stating by implication that you intend to do [very very bad thing] to them if they don't -- you are using the implied threat of violence. (By the same token, if you confront people in an alleyway and say "Hey buddy, give me your wallet," you can't defend yourself in court saying, "But I never threatened people with violence!" The threat of violence is implied by your demand.) So, in your question, you ask why bank robbery (a violent crime) is a jailable offense, while wage theft (a white collar crime) isn't. I think there's a lot of support for the idea that "non-violent offenders don't belong in prison (but violent offenders do)." It's the same reason that burglarizing your neighbor's house while they're on vacation is considered by most jurisdictions to be a less serious crime than mugging someone: robbers don't just victimize people by taking their money; they also threaten the victim's physical safety. I personally would feel much more rattled if I had $200 in cash taken from me at gunpoint than if I had a client stiff me for $500. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/africa/nigeria-bank-robbery/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/africa/nigeria-bank-robbery/i...
ebikelaw 8y ago
Don't you think there's also a place for law enforcement? In California many public works projects are delayed because inspectors regularly come to the work site, stop all work for the day, and interview the laborers on the site to make sure they are getting paid. This is disruptive and the only reason they need to do it is because when they find wage theft they don't really prosecute it. There are small fines and then everything continues. What the inspectors should do is give the contractors in question the figurative death penalty: permanently revoked contractor license, revocation of work orders, clawback of money already paid, jail time and serious fines for the individuals responsible. We for some reason have a high tolerance for white-collar crimes when we really should be prosecuting them vigorously.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  Given the scale of wage-theft in the US, as documented by this study, your emphasis on a narrow and specific concern related to inspections seems disproportionate. I'm not saying this isn't a difficult burden for those who deal with the inspections, but in terms of priorities, huge numbers of people getting robbed by their employers would seem to deserve more attention?
- wpietri 8y ago
  I would love to see law enforcement take this more seriously. But we should be honest with ourselves that in this moment in America, government is much more responsive to the needs of the rich. One only need look at the newspaper to suspect that, but studies agree: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi... One of the fundamental problems with employer/employee relations is that employers usually have more workers than employees have jobs. Losing your job is worse than having an employee quit. This fundamental imbalance of power means that we'll always need ways to even things out if we want reasonably fair situations for employees. Labor laws and law enforcement can cover part of that. And we should certainly pursue it. But I think people should also pursue collective action, be that as formal as a union or as casual as Google's workers all pressuring their employers to stop doing military work. Resilient systems always have multiple ways to keep a problem from getting out of control.
platz 8y ago
Co-determination / worker co-ops is a better route, since labor power has been blighted by pestilence.
conanbatt 8y ago
Labor organizations survive on the employees that pay them, they are the formality of wage theft.
conanbatt 8y ago
Labor organizations survive on the employees that pay them, they are the formality of wage theft. Unions suck, they really do. These things happen and people have to leave and find a new place, staying and litigating is not going to make any difference, and a union cannot spring money out of nowhere, they ould have the exact same issues.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Labor organizations survive on the employees that pay them, they are the formality of wage theft." No, absolutely not. There is nothing in that statement that is true. "These things happen and people have to leave and find a new place, staying and litigating is not going to make any difference" That is the most wishy washy way to wave away theft that I've ever heard. It basically sounds like you're saying, "It's going to happen, so just accept it, and don't try to change it." "and a union cannot spring money out of nowhere, they ould have the exact same issues." Except the companies doing this are benefitting from it, at the expense of their employees.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > No, absolutely not. There is nothing in that statement that is true. A union where joining is a costly-optionality will have no members. Thus any union that has any strength whatsoever will be able to restrict work one way or another. > That is the most wishy washy way to wave away theft that I've ever heard. It basically sounds like you're saying, "It's going to happen, so just accept it, and don't try to change it." More like suing the cow for spilt milk. If a company is going brankrupt in a disorderly manner (fast and in a short period of time) there is no justice. > Except the companies doing this are benefitting from it, at the expense of their employees. Yes but now the unions will join in on the pillage!

by 49531 8y ago

iagovar 8y ago

I am affiliated to a trade union in Spain and I find it mostly positive. Most trade unions seem lazy, like just structures of bureaucrats, but this one runs very well. I pay a monthly fee of 15€/month, have access to a labor lawyer and a "resistance box" in case I have to go on strike or something, they match a % of your salary (not remember how much, but in my case it was like 80% of it). They also have a sensible approach on collective agreements. I also have access to more stuff I can't remember now. Sadly this trade union is small, and sectorial, but it very refreshing seen this, because most trade unions in Spain have bad rep.

49531 8y ago
Older unions in the US has a bad rap as well, but I think a lot of that is corporate propaganda to be honest. Like, the idea of having a labor lawyer at your disposal is an incredible benefit to you. I am sure wage theft is a little harder when your employees are armed with legal aid.
- mgkimsal 8y ago
  had never even thought of that as a feature of unions. i know a couple people selling 'legalshield', and a few people that have bought it. having the ability to contact an attorney for 'now and then' questions, to clear stuff up, or write letters.... $30/month or something like that. Seems similar, and potentially valuable, to have that in a corporate setting, depending on how much $ it would actually run you.
  - tdeck 8y ago
    It seems like a reasonable idea, but personally I wouldn't trust any company that operates as an MLM as Legal Shield apparently does. It's hard to even find good information about such companies given the prevalence of astroturfing by their members.
    - mgkimsal 8y ago
      agree on mlm in general. conceptually, having some basic access to legal specific to workplace law would be a reasonable benefit for union members though.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Also keep in mind HN tends to lean anti-union because techies in general are treated and paid very well, and tend to feel like they don’t need unions.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    Techies are highly-paid relative to many other workers, but they're being exploited by they're being employers in many of the same ways as their low-wage counterparts, including collusive depression and theft of wages. Death march culture and the Google-Apple wage-fixing scandal should've demonstrated this to everyone.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      LinkedIn paid $6M for unpaid overtime, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137958 > LinkedIn failed to record, account and pay for all hours worked in a workweek, investigators found ... "Off the clock' hours are all too common for the American worker. This practice harms workers, denies them the wages they have rightfully earned and takes away time with families," said Susana Blanco, district director for the division in San Francisco. "We urge all employers, large and small, to review their pay practices to ensure employees know their basic workplace rights and that the commitment to compliance works through all levels of the organization. The department is committed to protecting the rights of workers and leveling the playing field for all law-abiding employers."
  - uiri 8y ago
    I think HN tends to lean anti-union because it is centered around a community of seed investors and entrepreneurs. Unions would work against their interests.
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      The answer seems obvious to me, and that is to have the workers be the investors themselves. In that way, the workers are also the bosses and can collectively decide their future and path forward. Other ways separates the money from the labor. There will always be strife in that organization. Having a worker owned co-op also means that the profits don't go elsewhere - they go back to the people doing the labor.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >but I think a lot of that is corporate propaganda to be honest I think it's both. My best friend makes $31 / hour installing plastic car door clips on an assembly line. That's a ridiculous wage for what he does (literally anyone could do his job.) I'm happy for him and his family, but there's also a negative aspect to labor costing 3-4x what would be competitive in an open market.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    "I'm happy for him and his family, but there's also a negative aspect to labor costing 3-4x what would be competitive in an open market." Id consider such arguments if they applied to CEO's or similarly were reducing corporate expenses on things of questionable value. I find most of the companies that aay they can't pay workers overpay upper management and have a lot of frivilous spending.
    - yomly 8y ago
      This. The levels of expenses paid for senior people in big organizations is insane. A friend recently rented out an apartment in central London to people working for a nonprofit org at £10k per month and this is only scratching the surface of ludicrous corporate expense culture. Meanwhile these upper management say they can't pay their staff a living wage...
      - briandear 8y ago
        A non-profit? Lol. Quick way to fix that is to let donors know about those ridiculous expenses. A private for profit company should be able to do whatever it wants because they are competing in a free market. Those high expenses might be justified as part of their strategy to recruit top management talent. Basically, those expenses are paid back by the output of those incurring them. A non-profit on the other hand — they are tax exempt, so taxpayers get to subsidize that 10k apartment.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Those high expenses might be justified as part of their strategy to recruit top management talent. " I really don't buy the argument that normal workers deserve to be paid crap because of "free market", but for some reason executive compensation needs to be amazingly outlandish.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Engineers like efficiency. We think of ourselves as handy generalists who can dive into any task. This necessarily puts us on the side of management regarding rules designed to ensure there is enough work to go around and limit the tasks that workers in specific roles are allowed to do. I’d genuinely take a pay cut to work in a high-functioning environment where workflows and systems are well orchestrated, rather than one where everything is an uphill slog due to arcane make-work rules. This is a character trait particular to tech industry folk, and may explain why we dislike old-school unions so much, even when they may be in our financial best interests.
  - 0x445442 8y ago
    >> I’d genuinely take a pay cut to work in a high-functioning environment where workflows and systems are well orchestrated, rather than one where everything is an uphill slog due to arcane make-work rules. This is a very interesting take and I'm exactly the same way. In fact, I just gave notice last week at my current position so that I could pursue a position with a company that was leaner and where more of my time would be spent on relevant work versus meta work. Fortunately, the complete compensation packages, benefits, insurance, et al. at both places came out to about a wash. My current employer is more secure from an employment perspective but I'm willing to give that up in exchange for "staying in the game" technically and for seeing the fruits of my labor have a more direct impact in the marketplace.
    - late2part 8y ago
      Please do. Many companies pay well and do not have make-work rules. You really really can work at a better place.
- union_throwaway 8y ago
  I have had many friends who work in fields which required them to join unions in the US (engineering, law enforcement, education, entertainment, etc), and I have never heard anyone say anything positive about them. At best, they suck a few dollars per month from your paycheck. Most commonly, they prevent the bad apples from ever being fired, no matter how blatant their behavior. Or a non-union person is not allowed to do a trivial task (like move a chair) because it's "union work". At worst, if union management decides to make you the target of a witch hunt, they can make it hell to try to find work in that field at any workplace in their jurisdiction. Who protects workers from the union itself? I accept that unions have had a valuable place in society, and they're definitely still good for some things, but I don't believe their poor reputation today is "corporate propaganda". They seem to be one of those types of organizations that have outlived their original purpose, mostly, and now exist to propagate themselves. Ultimately, it's just another power structure. The structure is neither good nor bad. What matters is the people. ("The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.") Like every organization, over time they tend to collect the type of people who take advantage of that power structure.
- briandear 8y ago
  For less than the cost of a union, you can get legal insurance/pre-paid legal services. It’s possible for people to take care of themselves.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    Is there a difference in power between individual and collective bargaining?
    - briandear 8y ago
      Collective bargaining devalues me as an individual contributor. If my pay is fixed to whatever level the union negotiated for me and those with equal seniority, I can’t get past that wage. My upward mobility is traded for a reduction in downward mobility. I would have less incentive to work harder or go the extra mile. I would have the passion and motivation of a clerk at the department of motor vehicles. You can’t fire me unless I do something really bad and I can’t get a raise unless everyone else also gets a raise. I can’t move employers to seek better wages because I’d lose seniority. Collective bargaining is a life sentence of mediocrity for both a company and individuals. However, for 19th and 20th style assembly line type work where workers are literally interchangeable, then I can understand the appeal of collective bargaining. Some guy turning the same screw all day on an assembly line — there is not much room for “excelling” — you either turn the screw when the next part gets to you, or you don’t. Screw-turning doesn’t really have much opportunity for innovation or extra-mile at the individual level. But for a restaurant worker who might be extra nice to a customer or stay a few minutes late to help make the place extra clean or the kitchen worker who reduces food waste by being more efficient — even those “low” level jobs would be harmed by collective bargaining. Jobs that benefit from collective bargaining are ones with extremely minimal autonomy or require an extremely low skill set: just turn a screw. For jobs that actually require intelligence (emotional or intellectual,) collective bargaining is an insult. Unless of course you are poorly motivated in which case it’s a gift.
      - knuththetruth 8y ago
        >Collective bargaining is a life sentence of mediocrity for both a company and individuals. How do you reconcile this opinion with the high-levels of pay and celebrity in the entertainment industry and professional sports? They're all unionized and their bosses make money hand over fist as well.
- wpietri 8y ago
  I'm sure some of it is propaganda, but I think it's also an artifact of very adversarial management/labor splits that were more common in the past. If management is full of exploitative dicks, it's not surprising that the unions would also think in a zero-sum fashion. There's a fantastic This American Life that I've recommended here before: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/561/nummi-2015 It's on the NUMMI plant. GM's worst plant was shut down; Toyota took it over as part of a joint venture to show GM how to make cars in the Toyota way. The story of the workers and how they change as they work for an employer that treats them with respect is amazing. It definitely made me believe that unions indeed could be shitty. But also, that it's not a one-sided thing, and that other relationships are not just possible, but necessary if we're going to make things that are more useful and reliable than a '79 Chevette.
chrisseaton 8y ago
What is in your "resistance box"? Sounds a bit sinister.
- klez 8y ago
  Sounds just like a collective rainy-day fund to afford losing your wage during a strike.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Sounded like a weapons cache to me! But I was sure it was actually something more reasonable.
- switch007 8y ago
  I think it was a literal translation of "caja de resistencia". From what I can gather it's a fund, usually managed by the union, to help alleviate financial hardship as a result of workers striking.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- evgen 8y ago
  In the US it is called a 'strike fund.'
tigershark 8y ago
Just to put things in perspective, what is your annual salary in a job with a strong trade union? From what I know from Italy I would bet much than 50k euros... And honestly I prefer to have much less job security for much more money in my pocket..
- briandear 8y ago
  Exactly why I oppose unions. They are bastions of average. I want the opportunity to not be average.
  - detcader 8y ago
    Unions and organized labor will always occur. The incentives for it are inevitable under capitalism. I accept this and would like to see a working economy that is more nuanced than the one implied by "opposing unions".
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Unions have absolutely nothing to do with that, and you know it. Stop with the propaganda.
- blub 8y ago
  Well that's the point: you are probably young enough, healthy enough and without many obligations, so it's easy for you to accept the lack of job security. But add a chronic health issue or having to take care of a dependant and you'll quickly find out why that job security + decent instead of maximum wage is not such a bad idea.

matchagaucho 8y ago

Agreed... but with the Supreme Court overturning Workers rights to file class action claims to recover lost wages, the ability to organize is under attack.

briandear 8y ago
They didn’t overturn that right. They affirmed that when an employee signs something, they are bound by the agreement they signed. Potential employees are free to not sign those agreements. Employees who have signed agreements can’t change their mind and suddenly complain about an agreement they willingly signed. If we eliminated those agreements and exposed companies to increased litigation risk, what would you expect to happen to wages? They’d go down naturally. Let’s pretend companies were bound by French style agreements — wages would quickly drop to French-style wages. American workers have more disposable income that almost every other country. If you want to reduce that disposable income, start allowing class actions. Mind you, employees DO have protection against wage “theft” — that’s already a crime. A simple google search will return dozens of law firms ready to represent a worker who thinks they’ve been wronged. Even arbitration agreements can’t protect against illegal activity. The only people getting paid for class actions are attorneys. The worker doesn’t win anything but maybe a $25 check. Meanwhile their employer has to incur extraordinary expenses. Who pays for that? The workers through lower salaries and customers through higher prices.
- matchagaucho 8y ago
  4 of the 9 Justices disagree. Minimum wage Workers do not have the time or resources to hire a Lawyer to chase down $100 in withheld overtime. When theft has occurred at a mass scale, such as Amazon Warehouse Workers or UPS Employees... it is far less expensive for the Employer to settle the matter with one collective unit, rather than thousands of individuals. Yes, the Lawyers reap the majority of the benefits, but the judgement takes that penalty into account.
  - Shivetya 8y ago
    Arbitration clauses which the Supremes upheld favor those who cannot afford a lawyer because it guarantees their grievance must be acknowledged and addressed. Now while an outcome favorable to the employee is not always guaranteed nor is one for the employer. Class Action with regards to wage suits is very rare and this was mainly a push by plaintiff attorneys who stood to rake in millions while offering no guarantee of providing a substantive reward for the plaintive. In the end as stated by some the reasoning, the two laws are written as such that binding agreements are truly that, binding. If that needs to change then Congress needs to act.

jdietrich 8y ago

>Workers cannot rely on policy makers The fact that they can't represents a major political failure. Good policies can make a huge difference. Here in the UK, the HMRC (our tax authority) is responsible for enforcing the National Minimum Wage. This makes a great deal of sense. Employers are legally required to report wage payments to HMRC for payroll tax purposes and the HMRC have tremendous institutional capacity for conducting financial investigations. For HMRC, a minimum wage complaint is a twofer - underpaid wages mean less revenue from payroll taxes and is usually a sign of tax evasion. HMRC operate a confidential hotline for reporting violations of the minimum wage law. Where workers need to resolve a complaint, they can access mediation or binding arbitration completely free of charge. There is inevitably the risk of retaliatory action by an employer, but at least employees have the ability to enforce their rights without having to pay for legal representation.

49531 8y ago
The UK also has an explicit party for labor. The US has nothing of the sort. The Democratic party used to be the labor party but as since joined the Republicans as a corporate funded organization. Hard to pass labor laws when your big donors are employers.
Thlom 8y ago
Not knowing the UK very well, but you have had and still have strong unions with political representation through the Labour party. If labour isn't organised you will not get good (for the working class) policy. Politics is the formal battle of interests and if labour doesn't show up to the fight, the capital owners wins on walkover.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Our trade unions were kneecapped by Thatcher back in the 80s. A Labour government introduced the minimum wage, but the current Conservative government is progressively increasing it from £6.50 in 2015 to £9 by 2020. Employment tribunals were introduced in 1996 by a Conservative government; a Conservative government introduced relatively high fees in 2013, but this was overturned by the Supreme Court last year. Unions are part of the picture, but they're a reflection of a broader political culture. Trade unions can't turn the electorate socialist, but a socialist electorate can build strong trade unions.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

How about we treat so-called white collar crimes the same as regular crimes? In this case, theft is theft. If you can't pay a fine as pinishment for robbing a bank, why can you do it for something like wage theft? Fines are a slap on the wrist. But take away freedom from the guilty and things will change. Quickly.

the8472 8y ago
Game-theoretic concerns. You don't want to collapse the hierarchy of deterrance, otherwise you'll have "might as well murder them to hide the evidence of my previous crimes" situation. Additionally the difference in visibility and number of people who are in a theoretical position to commit theft vs. those who are in a position to withhold wages might have an impact since it's probably easier to go after the latter after the fact while you have to rely more on deterrence for the former.
Kuiper 8y ago
If you can't pay a fine as pinishment for robbing a bank, why can you do it for something like wage theft? Robbery is a violent crime (robbery, by definition, consists of using force or threat of force/intimidation) that places members of the public in danger. For example, last month there was a Nigerian bank robbery last month where bank robbers armed with assault rifles and got into a gun battle with police officers that left 16 people dead. [1] Now, you could make the argument that running around with an assault rifle and firing at people is its own crime, but when you walk into a bank and hand the teller a note that says "Give me all the money in the vault," you are stating by implication that you intend to do [very very bad thing] to them if they don't -- you are using the implied threat of violence. (By the same token, if you confront people in an alleyway and say "Hey buddy, give me your wallet," you can't defend yourself in court saying, "But I never threatened people with violence!" The threat of violence is implied by your demand.) So, in your question, you ask why bank robbery (a violent crime) is a jailable offense, while wage theft (a white collar crime) isn't. I think there's a lot of support for the idea that "non-violent offenders don't belong in prison (but violent offenders do)." It's the same reason that burglarizing your neighbor's house while they're on vacation is considered by most jurisdictions to be a less serious crime than mugging someone: robbers don't just victimize people by taking their money; they also threaten the victim's physical safety. I personally would feel much more rattled if I had $200 in cash taken from me at gunpoint than if I had a client stiff me for $500. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/africa/nigeria-bank-robbery/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/africa/nigeria-bank-robbery/i...

ebikelaw 8y ago

Don't you think there's also a place for law enforcement? In California many public works projects are delayed because inspectors regularly come to the work site, stop all work for the day, and interview the laborers on the site to make sure they are getting paid. This is disruptive and the only reason they need to do it is because when they find wage theft they don't really prosecute it. There are small fines and then everything continues. What the inspectors should do is give the contractors in question the figurative death penalty: permanently revoked contractor license, revocation of work orders, clawback of money already paid, jail time and serious fines for the individuals responsible. We for some reason have a high tolerance for white-collar crimes when we really should be prosecuting them vigorously.

knuththetruth 8y ago
Given the scale of wage-theft in the US, as documented by this study, your emphasis on a narrow and specific concern related to inspections seems disproportionate. I'm not saying this isn't a difficult burden for those who deal with the inspections, but in terms of priorities, huge numbers of people getting robbed by their employers would seem to deserve more attention?
wpietri 8y ago
I would love to see law enforcement take this more seriously. But we should be honest with ourselves that in this moment in America, government is much more responsive to the needs of the rich. One only need look at the newspaper to suspect that, but studies agree: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi... One of the fundamental problems with employer/employee relations is that employers usually have more workers than employees have jobs. Losing your job is worse than having an employee quit. This fundamental imbalance of power means that we'll always need ways to even things out if we want reasonably fair situations for employees. Labor laws and law enforcement can cover part of that. And we should certainly pursue it. But I think people should also pursue collective action, be that as formal as a union or as casual as Google's workers all pressuring their employers to stop doing military work. Resilient systems always have multiple ways to keep a problem from getting out of control.

platz 8y ago

Co-determination / worker co-ops is a better route, since labor power has been blighted by pestilence.

conanbatt 8y ago

Labor organizations survive on the employees that pay them, they are the formality of wage theft.

conanbatt 8y ago

Labor organizations survive on the employees that pay them, they are the formality of wage theft. Unions suck, they really do. These things happen and people have to leave and find a new place, staying and litigating is not going to make any difference, and a union cannot spring money out of nowhere, they ould have the exact same issues.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Labor organizations survive on the employees that pay them, they are the formality of wage theft." No, absolutely not. There is nothing in that statement that is true. "These things happen and people have to leave and find a new place, staying and litigating is not going to make any difference" That is the most wishy washy way to wave away theft that I've ever heard. It basically sounds like you're saying, "It's going to happen, so just accept it, and don't try to change it." "and a union cannot spring money out of nowhere, they ould have the exact same issues." Except the companies doing this are benefitting from it, at the expense of their employees.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > No, absolutely not. There is nothing in that statement that is true. A union where joining is a costly-optionality will have no members. Thus any union that has any strength whatsoever will be able to restrict work one way or another. > That is the most wishy washy way to wave away theft that I've ever heard. It basically sounds like you're saying, "It's going to happen, so just accept it, and don't try to change it." More like suing the cow for spilt milk. If a company is going brankrupt in a disorderly manner (fast and in a short period of time) there is no justice. > Except the companies doing this are benefitting from it, at the expense of their employees. Yes but now the unions will join in on the pillage!