8 ms·

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 di

by 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.
    - late2part 8y ago
      Can you give some succesful examples where the workers are the investors themselves and decide collectively their future?
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        Mondragon , in the Basque region of Spain is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation I don't read Italian, but there are a set of unemployment laws in Italy that roughly state - if there are 10 unemployed people who have an idea for a company, they can request all their unemployment insurance collectively and form a worker cooperative. Right now, there's more than 8000 such cooperatives in Italy. In Norway, Kantega is another such example. They're considered in the top 100 best workplaces in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantega https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantega Suma, a food collective, is another such example. Again, note the humane treatment of workers. Again, this is democracy in the workplace - the workers collectively decide how they are to be treated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative) Prof. Wolff had a dissertation he gave, which is on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s
      - 8y ago
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.

by 49531 8y ago

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.
  - late2part 8y ago
    Can you give some succesful examples where the workers are the investors themselves and decide collectively their future?
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      Mondragon , in the Basque region of Spain is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation I don't read Italian, but there are a set of unemployment laws in Italy that roughly state - if there are 10 unemployed people who have an idea for a company, they can request all their unemployment insurance collectively and form a worker cooperative. Right now, there's more than 8000 such cooperatives in Italy. In Norway, Kantega is another such example. They're considered in the top 100 best workplaces in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantega https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantega Suma, a food collective, is another such example. Again, note the humane treatment of workers. Again, this is democracy in the workplace - the workers collectively decide how they are to be treated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative) Prof. Wolff had a dissertation he gave, which is on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s
    - 8y ago

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.