6 ms·
Unions always look like a good idea to workers. But to me a union is a sign of an industry in stasis or decline. There are no dynamic organizations that are a
by TheMagicHorsey 8y ago
Unions always look like a good idea to workers. But to me a union is a sign of an industry in stasis or decline. There are no dynamic organizations that are adaptable, that are also Union shops. Everywhere and always unions are a force of conservation. They conserve the status as it exists today. Roles, processes, relations, all are frozen in time.
Unions work best for workers in places like the public sector where the employer is a government that literally cannot go out of business and where the state grants the union a monopoly so that other companies cannot enter the market and displace the union workers. Teachers, police, postal workers, firemen ... these are roles where no market competition is allowed and consumers are not given a chance to chose alternatives when service gets really bad. That's where a union is most beneficial to workers because they can extract a pound of flesh from the public and the public can't do anything about it.
But at a place like the New Yorker, where people can get news anywhere, and there are upstart competitors nipping at your heels, a union will just hasten the decline.
Now management will have to go through protracted union negotiations to make changes to the labor force at the company or to adjust roles and responsibilities.
I love the New Yorker. I hope enough rich urbanites are willing to pay a subscription to keep the magazine going even if times move on.
- epicureanideal 8y agoI think the problems you're ascribing to unions are problems with specific union structures. The definition of a union would permit you to create a structure where these problems don't exist. If we took a snapshot of capitalism in the 19th century, with children working in mines, ridiculously long hours, and so on, we could similarly say "capitalism is terrible because x, y, z", but that was just a particular implementation at that time. I'm not advocating for or against unions, just trying to make sure we're arguing for or against them for valid reasons.
- ritchiea 8y agoThe New Yorker typically doesn't provide news, with some exceptions such as Ronan Farrow's reporting on Harvey Weinstein. The New Yorker provides the perspective of it's writers which is always going to depend on the editorial strength of the magazine and has always existed in a competitive environment. Admittedly today is an even more competitive environment than the past but my understanding is the publication continues to be profitable despite online competition and it has already outlived many of its internet born competitors.
- knuththetruth 8y ago>There are no dynamic organizations that are adaptable, that are also Union shops The entertainment industry and professional athletes are all unionized. I can't think of more competitive and dynamic industries than those outside of tech.
- TheMagicHorsey 8y agoHollywood, California, is unionized. The film industry as a whole is not. And Hollywood, California is not a dynamic part of the film industry. I would say the rest of the world is a lot more dynamic than Hollywood. Indie film is largely non-union. You can't with a straight face say US professional sports are dynamic. The NFL is one of the worst government-supported cartels in America. The players, I would argue, are screwed over by the NFL, despite having a union.
- rhizome 8y agoCan you define your terms a little bit? It seems like you're assuming we all have the same sense of what "Hollywood" means, but you're relying a lot on synecdoche to make a point here.
- TheMagicHorsey 8y agoThe part of the film industry that is unionized is precisely the part of the film industry that is not adaptive and dynamic.
- knuththetruth 8y agoWriters? Actors? Animators? Various skilled trades? All or most are unionized. You seem to be shifting a lot of goal posts to suit your narrative.
- rhizome 8y agoWhat parts of the film industry aren't unionized?
- rhizome 8y agoBut to me a union is a sign of an industry in stasis or decline. Are you saying that growth is the only legitimate business goal?
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoNo, TheMagicHorsey is saying that, once a business becomes unionized, it innovates much more slowly. In the actual world we live in, that turns out to be bad for customers.
- rhizome 8y agoStability is bad for customers, or do you have some other criteria in mind?
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI thought "innovates much more slowly" was clear enough.
- rhizome 8y agoWhat is the relationship between "more slowly" and "in stasis or decline?"
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago> Everywhere and always unions are a force of conservation. They conserve the status as it exists today. Roles, processes, relations, all are frozen in time. I'm not sure that's true in Germany. (It does seem to be the general trend, I'll agree.)
- piva00 8y agoUnions are the backbone of Swedish labour protection, your view of labour movement is very skewed towards your American biases.
- TheMagicHorsey 8y agoThere's a reason Sweden relies on the United States to provide new types of technology and services. Sweden is a nice neighborhood. It's not going to make anything that pushes industry or culture forward though. You need a messy, competitive place like America for that. Not an elaborate gated community. Don't get me wrong. When I slow down and can't work anymore, I want to live in Sweden too. But when I'm young and trying to make a change in the world I would never go there. It's a good place to raise kids and have a lifestyle though.
- paidleaf 8y ago> Unions always look like a good idea to workers. It's a great idea to older workers. Every union I've been part of sacrificed the benefits of younger or future workers for the benefit of the older ones. > I love the New Yorker. I hope enough rich urbanites are willing to pay a subscription to keep the magazine going even if times move on. Why would we pay a subscription for a magazine full of ads? I'd rather support independent journalists, writers, etc than those working for establishment media. The only reason writers/journalists needed media companies was because they needed a delivery platform. Now they have the internet, maybe they should strike out on their own.