8 ms·

This mental model of an economic system leads to disaster. > The gist of it is that employees aren't compelled to pay union dues... This is always the argume

This mental model of an economic system leads to disaster. > The gist of it is that employees aren't compelled to pay union dues... This is always the argument unions make to get mandatory contributions from employees. The risks of doing so are the following: 1) that all employees regardless of their individual contribution get the same salaries, meaning that over-achieving workers will work less, and under-achieving workers will not work more. (a.k.a. elimination of incentives) 2) That employees that do not like how the union is managed cannot work in that place, either because the union would not allow them, or because they have to pay for an organization that they do not belong to voluntarily 3) That the union, having sole negotiation power for all workers, takes kickbacks from the company for lower compensation for all workers. 4) That even if the union is incorruptible, its optional but its subscribed by most employees, that it actually manages not to decrease productivity, then, there is another company that does not have the same problem, will attract more capital since it gets bigger returns, and the company fails anyway. Unions are not economically efficient organizations. They are politically efficient, so they serve a great political purpose, but their work in the economic sphere is only destructive.

munk-a 8y ago
Similar to a quote often attributed to Churchill that goes... > Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. in this case I think the burden of improvement is on those trying to tear down the union and we can rework it a bit to say > Unions are the worst form of worker protection, except for all the others. I don't disagree that Unions can de-incentivize workers and become corrupt, but it's the best tool we have right now.
- stale2002 8y ago
  No, the burden is instead on the people who are trying to force everyone to join their club. The baseline default should instead be that nobody is forced to join your organization, and it.is on THEM to convince you to join. Freedom of association is an important value, that is enshined in the Constitution.
  - sequoia 8y ago
    If you prefer, think of it thus: 1. People in a shop voluntarily associate with the union or not 2. If the shop hires non-union workers, the union workers stop working 3. Mgmt decides whether or not this is worth it to them to hire non-union workers No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association. A "union shop" is just a shorthand for the process above. Incidentally, who is lobbies/bribes politicians for "right to work" etc.? Is it management or individual, non-organized workers? (If you think it's the latter I've got a bridge to sell you...). Why might management be interested in promoting the "right to work"? The interests don't seem to line up.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Management is not allowed to fire union people and hire non-union people in their place. Once the union is created, nobody has any choice but to join it. Thats the law. Once the union is voted in, they now represent all workers, and it is highly illegal to just decide to fire all the union people. There is nothing voluntary about that.
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        When a company agrees to a contract, they are expected to abide by the terms of that contract. Why should unions be disallowed from forming exclusivity contracts when every other type of organization is allowed to?
        stale2002 8y ago
        If a union is allowed to make such an exclusive contract, then management should be allowed to fire everyone for starting the union, before such a contract is made. The rights work both ways. Either everyone should be allowed to make exclusive contracts, INCLUDING a contract that disallows unions, or nobody should be allowed to do so.
    - bmelton 8y ago
      > No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association That is provably false in at least some states, because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. That's been the case since 1977, and was decided with __Abood v Detroit Board of Ed__[1], hich compelled teachers to pay union dues, no matter their stance on the union. To whit: > A Michigan statute authorizing union representation of local governmental employees permits an "agency shop" arrangement, whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. That issue is currently up for dispute in __Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31__[2] [1] - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.htm... [2] - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466
- conanbatt 8y ago
  I think the burden of proof is on the other side: no special protections should be given to unions, they should be voluntary and thats it.
  - Avshalom 8y ago
    Right-To-Work laws are special protections for the business not vis a versa. Without them business' and union get/have to freely and voluntarily come to an agreement about employment terms. With them the union is handicapped in favor of the business.
    - hpcjoe 8y ago
      Wrong in most aspects. Right to work effectively ends most labor monopolies that unions have erected. By removing the monopolies, workers have far better choices about whom to work for, and how to negotiate wages. Here's a simple example of the power of monopoly and oligarchy. The recent wage fixing kerfuffle over at google, apple, FB, and others resulting initially in depressed wages for workers. Upon breaking up that oligarchy, and putting those companies on notice ... what has happened to wages? If I believe the pro-union folks here, then they have fallen dramatically, and workers are at a disadvantage in negotiations. However, I believe in market economics, the invisible hand of the market, and see it in action here. Wages have risen dramatically, as the market distortion due to the oligarchy has been removed, and labor is free to discover its price. Had there been a union ... this would not have happened. You would have a floor and a ceiling. More productive workers would not seek to increase their wages by working harder, or switching companies. Demand would be distorted. If you want to be able to negotiate wages, you need leverage. Leverage in the form of a union is well understood, and has consequences for locales. Leverage in the form of demand (get multiple job offers, create a market making enterprise for selling your labor, select the highest/best offer).
      - Avshalom 8y ago
        Those "labor monopolies" were negotiated voluntarily in environments that were already actively hostile to unions. Right to Work laws interfere with the right to association idea that libertarian capitalism champions as a absolute good.
evanlivingston 8y ago
I wonder if it is the case that society can benefit from having organizations installed in economic instrumentation that act as a bulwark against the creep of the economic sphere. Perhaps market forces alone a detrimental to well-being and organizations that are in opposition to those are a necessary function of a larger social economy.
- naravara 8y ago
  >I wonder if it is the case that society can benefit from having organizations installed in economic instrumentation that act as a bulwark against the creep of the economic sphere. We do. Social mores have been doing this, for good and ill, for basically forever. Part of the pernicious effects of neoliberal Thatcherism has been the slow removal of the idea that companies have any social role or responsibility aside from maximizing shareholder value. The ethic has crept in everywhere and it has had seriously destructive effects for important public institutions whose primary social value is non-economic (such as journalism, the arts, or academia).
49531 8y ago
There's a lot going on here. > 1) that all employees regardless of their individual contribution get the same salaries, meaning that over-achieving workers will work less, and under-achieving workers will not work more. (a.k.a. elimination of incentives) Union representation doesn't inherently flatten compensation. Managers and companies can still promote, hire, and fire employees. Also differences in compensation in non-union workplaces is typically determined by the employees negotiating skills more than merit. > 2) That employees that do not like how the union is managed cannot work in that place, either because the union would not allow them, or because they have to pay for an organization that they do not belong to voluntarily Yea the point of unions is to have collective bargaining power, that power is sapped when workers don't participate in the collective part. Also a union is typically run by employees, and union leaders are elected. If things are bad you have the power to change things. You're much more empowered to change things in your union than you are to actually change things in the running of your corporation. > 3) That the union, having sole negotiation power for all workers, takes kickbacks from the company for lower compensation for all workers. Unions do have a tendency to corrupt with age, mostly because corporations who are saddled with a union typically find it easier to corrupt its leaders than to actually negotiate. I'd argue that even in a corrupt union you're better represented than without a union. You at least have the structure in place to do things like strike and organize. Often when union leaders are corrupt or just not effective workers will take action outside of the union. Most of the recent teacher strikes were "wildcat" actions taken without the union's consent. > 4) That even if the union is incorruptible, its optional but its subscribed by most employees, that it actually manages not to decrease productivity, then, there is another company that does not have the same problem, will attract more capital since it gets bigger returns, and the company fails anyway. This is the same argument people make against raising the minimum wage. "Conform to exploitation or be replaced". A lot of workers worry that fighting for better lives will lead to worse lives, like losing your job, or your company going under. This isn't really shown to happen in reality, but corporations keep pushing the point. This entire comment reeks of corporate propaganda. Unions aren't a silver bullet against worker exploitation, but having union representation is a hell of a lot better than not.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > Union representation doesn't inherently flatten compensation. Managers and companies can still promote, hire, and fire employees. Also differences in compensation in non-union workplaces is typically determined by the employees negotiating skills more than merit. If unions dont get a say on who gets fired or not, they have no power. The company could retaliate at any point on an employee making a demand, and the union can only stop it by threatening to strike. Thus, the union is an association of power to control who gets fired or hired. The fact that the union and the company sit down together to make a guideline can only mean workers get shafted: neither the union leaders nor the company will lose in a voluntary arrangement. > Yea the point of unions is to have collective bargaining power, that power is sapped when workers don't participate in the collective part. Also a union is typically run by employees, and union leaders are elected. If things are bad you have the power to change things. You're much more empowered to change things in your union than you are to actually change things in the running of your corporation. Its a structure of power like any other, but you are missing out on many things: that workers that havent joined yet do not get a vote. So unions have this clever economic way to increase their wages: prohibiting others from doing their job. Thats why unions that are powerful advocate for higher minimum wages (that dont affect them directly) and tariffs. In any case, saying a union only works if it is applied by forced unanimity should be a red flag for a certain kind of organization. > This is the same argument people make against raising the minimum wage. "Conform to exploitation or be replaced". A lot of workers worry that fighting for better lives will lead to worse lives, like losing your job, or your company going under. This isn't really shown to happen in reality, but corporations keep pushing the point. The unions make the same argument! Because they want all the workers in a field, for all companies, to unite! They do know that the power of a local union is very limited if another company is not bound by it. > This entire comment reeks of corporate propaganda. Unions aren't a silver bullet against worker exploitation, but having union representation is a hell of a lot better than not. More like reeks of someone from a country that has constitutional protections for unions and have worst productivity, highest prices, high unemployement, tariffs and low purchasing power.
patmcc 8y ago
1) Lots of unions and guilds don't operate like this; maybe you get more based on seniority, education, performance reviews, by hitting targets, or some other measure. Maybe the guild (think of the hollywood ones; writers and actors guilds) sets a minimum pay but you're able to negotiate for more. Union=same salaries is far too simplistic, there are lots of ways this can be negotiated. 2) Same is true for non-union workplaces - you don't like how a place is run I guess you're going to be unhappy there. With a union (that you can take part in, vote for your leaders, vote on your contract, etc.) maybe you can change that. 3) Sure, if your union/leadership is corrupt. Vote the bastards out then. With no union...the company just keeps that money that would have been used to bribe a union official. Not clear to me that's better for the worker. 4) Maybe. Maybe the union attracts better employees, improves retention, etc. and leads to a better and more profitable workplace. Maybe the whole industry gets unionized so it's an even playing field and the owners of all companies lose (and workers gain). I certainly think it's possible unions reduce the total amount of wealth generated from a system. But so what? I think society would be better of if, for example, Walmart made $90b instead of $100b and the workers gained $9b. (Numbers completely made up, of course).
- legostormtroopr 8y ago
  I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. I've also never heard of a union that supported performance pay, because by the law of average most of their members will be under average, and they wouldn't want to irritate them.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    Any union worth a damn should always fight any performance based pay because it goes contrary to their interests.
    - legostormtroopr 8y ago
      Except they don't.
nsriv 8y ago
This is a cartoonishly naive idea of the operations of a union. 1) Unions set wage minimums and working conditions. You're free to negotiate for more. Underachieving workers receive more, and overachieving workers also receive more because the floor for their negotiations are raised. 2) Employees who do not like the operations of their union have a democratic stake in changing it, or can run for leadership positions themselves. Without a union, their only option for a grievance is to work elsewhere, which is not always feasible (location, family, accrued benefits). 3) Workers have skin in the game and union dues to pay. It's not unheard of for workers to threaten union leadership with non-payment to force a radical leadership change, and there's always the more measured approach of union elections. 4) This is a critical mass problem. There was no decrease in productivity when unionized workplaces were the standard. Without unions you have skyrocketing productivity but wage stagnation. Eventually the wage stagnation turns into a drag on productivity, but in the meantime the company gets rich. It depends on what you prioritize. EDIT: patmcc has a much better response than my own.
- stale2002 8y ago
  .
  - civilitty 8y ago
    What is "the union?" What is "the contract?" Each union has its own organizational structures, rules, and contracts that can sometimes including a ban on union members negotiating for higher pay for themselves. None of the unions that I am familiar with have such a restriction except for one union for civil servants.
    - aseipp 8y ago
      You're not going to get an answer, because the person you're dealing with has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
shkkmo 8y ago
Many of you points are solid reasons why mandatory union membership/dues can cause problems. However this is quite clearly false: > Unions are not economically efficient organizations. They are politically efficient, so they serve a great political purpose, but their work in the economic sphere is only destructive. Unions can be quite economically productive and at their best can provide productivity bonuses to companies that work with them. The problem is balancing the power between the union and the company to get cooperation and increases in productivity. When Unions get too powerful, they start looking out for their own interests rather than those of their members, to the detriment of the workers and the company. When companies become to powerful, they can suppress union membership and the collective negotiating power of their workers, to the detriment of the workers and the market.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Unions in effect are powerful only when they can change their income without affecting their productivity. Voluntary unions can achieve productivity gains by being another form of organization, that I grant and thats why I see value in freedom of association. But that is not the union people imagine or want when bernie Sanders calls for them. They imagine the power of changing wages at will.
bsder 8y ago
> 1) that all employees regardless of their individual contribution get the same salaries, meaning that over-achieving workers will work less, and under-achieving workers will not work more. (a.k.a. elimination of incentives) Why does everybody always assume that they will always be the overachievers? This seems to be a particular fault in the HN readership. The problem is that you WILL have some off times. You will get sick and you will age. You will be "merely average" at some point. Should the company be able to fire you after 20 years because someone new might be more productive? This was far more critical in places like the steel mills where the work itself guaranteed that you would get sick. "Nobody ever retires from the car shop" was one of the mantras at Bethlehem Steel--you wound up dead of something caused by working around toxic crap all your life.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  You are missing the point: when wages are negotiated by power, productivity is a secondary goal if any. As soon as productivity departs wages, you will see it go to any direction, and most likely, down. And if productivity goes down, you better be damn sure wages are going down as well. > Should the company be able to fire you after 20 years because someone new might be more productive? That will be desired if by union negotiation you are forced to pay both equally. But if you allow for different wages that can be re-negotiated at any point.
rhacker 8y ago
I have met a lot of people that have, at one point or another, been on the non-union side of the negotiating table, that sound exactly like this.

munk-a 8y ago

Similar to a quote often attributed to Churchill that goes... > Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. in this case I think the burden of improvement is on those trying to tear down the union and we can rework it a bit to say > Unions are the worst form of worker protection, except for all the others. I don't disagree that Unions can de-incentivize workers and become corrupt, but it's the best tool we have right now.

stale2002 8y ago
No, the burden is instead on the people who are trying to force everyone to join their club. The baseline default should instead be that nobody is forced to join your organization, and it.is on THEM to convince you to join. Freedom of association is an important value, that is enshined in the Constitution.
- sequoia 8y ago
  If you prefer, think of it thus: 1. People in a shop voluntarily associate with the union or not 2. If the shop hires non-union workers, the union workers stop working 3. Mgmt decides whether or not this is worth it to them to hire non-union workers No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association. A "union shop" is just a shorthand for the process above. Incidentally, who is lobbies/bribes politicians for "right to work" etc.? Is it management or individual, non-organized workers? (If you think it's the latter I've got a bridge to sell you...). Why might management be interested in promoting the "right to work"? The interests don't seem to line up.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Management is not allowed to fire union people and hire non-union people in their place. Once the union is created, nobody has any choice but to join it. Thats the law. Once the union is voted in, they now represent all workers, and it is highly illegal to just decide to fire all the union people. There is nothing voluntary about that.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      When a company agrees to a contract, they are expected to abide by the terms of that contract. Why should unions be disallowed from forming exclusivity contracts when every other type of organization is allowed to?
      - stale2002 8y ago
        If a union is allowed to make such an exclusive contract, then management should be allowed to fire everyone for starting the union, before such a contract is made. The rights work both ways. Either everyone should be allowed to make exclusive contracts, INCLUDING a contract that disallows unions, or nobody should be allowed to do so.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    > No one is coerced or forced into an involuntary association That is provably false in at least some states, because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. That's been the case since 1977, and was decided with __Abood v Detroit Board of Ed__[1], hich compelled teachers to pay union dues, no matter their stance on the union. To whit: > A Michigan statute authorizing union representation of local governmental employees permits an "agency shop" arrangement, whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. That issue is currently up for dispute in __Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31__[2] [1] - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.htm... [2] - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466
conanbatt 8y ago
I think the burden of proof is on the other side: no special protections should be given to unions, they should be voluntary and thats it.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  Right-To-Work laws are special protections for the business not vis a versa. Without them business' and union get/have to freely and voluntarily come to an agreement about employment terms. With them the union is handicapped in favor of the business.
  - hpcjoe 8y ago
    Wrong in most aspects. Right to work effectively ends most labor monopolies that unions have erected. By removing the monopolies, workers have far better choices about whom to work for, and how to negotiate wages. Here's a simple example of the power of monopoly and oligarchy. The recent wage fixing kerfuffle over at google, apple, FB, and others resulting initially in depressed wages for workers. Upon breaking up that oligarchy, and putting those companies on notice ... what has happened to wages? If I believe the pro-union folks here, then they have fallen dramatically, and workers are at a disadvantage in negotiations. However, I believe in market economics, the invisible hand of the market, and see it in action here. Wages have risen dramatically, as the market distortion due to the oligarchy has been removed, and labor is free to discover its price. Had there been a union ... this would not have happened. You would have a floor and a ceiling. More productive workers would not seek to increase their wages by working harder, or switching companies. Demand would be distorted. If you want to be able to negotiate wages, you need leverage. Leverage in the form of a union is well understood, and has consequences for locales. Leverage in the form of demand (get multiple job offers, create a market making enterprise for selling your labor, select the highest/best offer).
    - Avshalom 8y ago
      Those "labor monopolies" were negotiated voluntarily in environments that were already actively hostile to unions. Right to Work laws interfere with the right to association idea that libertarian capitalism champions as a absolute good.

evanlivingston 8y ago

I wonder if it is the case that society can benefit from having organizations installed in economic instrumentation that act as a bulwark against the creep of the economic sphere. Perhaps market forces alone a detrimental to well-being and organizations that are in opposition to those are a necessary function of a larger social economy.

naravara 8y ago
>I wonder if it is the case that society can benefit from having organizations installed in economic instrumentation that act as a bulwark against the creep of the economic sphere. We do. Social mores have been doing this, for good and ill, for basically forever. Part of the pernicious effects of neoliberal Thatcherism has been the slow removal of the idea that companies have any social role or responsibility aside from maximizing shareholder value. The ethic has crept in everywhere and it has had seriously destructive effects for important public institutions whose primary social value is non-economic (such as journalism, the arts, or academia).

49531 8y ago

There's a lot going on here. > 1) that all employees regardless of their individual contribution get the same salaries, meaning that over-achieving workers will work less, and under-achieving workers will not work more. (a.k.a. elimination of incentives) Union representation doesn't inherently flatten compensation. Managers and companies can still promote, hire, and fire employees. Also differences in compensation in non-union workplaces is typically determined by the employees negotiating skills more than merit. > 2) That employees that do not like how the union is managed cannot work in that place, either because the union would not allow them, or because they have to pay for an organization that they do not belong to voluntarily Yea the point of unions is to have collective bargaining power, that power is sapped when workers don't participate in the collective part. Also a union is typically run by employees, and union leaders are elected. If things are bad you have the power to change things. You're much more empowered to change things in your union than you are to actually change things in the running of your corporation. > 3) That the union, having sole negotiation power for all workers, takes kickbacks from the company for lower compensation for all workers. Unions do have a tendency to corrupt with age, mostly because corporations who are saddled with a union typically find it easier to corrupt its leaders than to actually negotiate. I'd argue that even in a corrupt union you're better represented than without a union. You at least have the structure in place to do things like strike and organize. Often when union leaders are corrupt or just not effective workers will take action outside of the union. Most of the recent teacher strikes were "wildcat" actions taken without the union's consent. > 4) That even if the union is incorruptible, its optional but its subscribed by most employees, that it actually manages not to decrease productivity, then, there is another company that does not have the same problem, will attract more capital since it gets bigger returns, and the company fails anyway. This is the same argument people make against raising the minimum wage. "Conform to exploitation or be replaced". A lot of workers worry that fighting for better lives will lead to worse lives, like losing your job, or your company going under. This isn't really shown to happen in reality, but corporations keep pushing the point. This entire comment reeks of corporate propaganda. Unions aren't a silver bullet against worker exploitation, but having union representation is a hell of a lot better than not.

conanbatt 8y ago
> Union representation doesn't inherently flatten compensation. Managers and companies can still promote, hire, and fire employees. Also differences in compensation in non-union workplaces is typically determined by the employees negotiating skills more than merit. If unions dont get a say on who gets fired or not, they have no power. The company could retaliate at any point on an employee making a demand, and the union can only stop it by threatening to strike. Thus, the union is an association of power to control who gets fired or hired. The fact that the union and the company sit down together to make a guideline can only mean workers get shafted: neither the union leaders nor the company will lose in a voluntary arrangement. > Yea the point of unions is to have collective bargaining power, that power is sapped when workers don't participate in the collective part. Also a union is typically run by employees, and union leaders are elected. If things are bad you have the power to change things. You're much more empowered to change things in your union than you are to actually change things in the running of your corporation. Its a structure of power like any other, but you are missing out on many things: that workers that havent joined yet do not get a vote. So unions have this clever economic way to increase their wages: prohibiting others from doing their job. Thats why unions that are powerful advocate for higher minimum wages (that dont affect them directly) and tariffs. In any case, saying a union only works if it is applied by forced unanimity should be a red flag for a certain kind of organization. > This is the same argument people make against raising the minimum wage. "Conform to exploitation or be replaced". A lot of workers worry that fighting for better lives will lead to worse lives, like losing your job, or your company going under. This isn't really shown to happen in reality, but corporations keep pushing the point. The unions make the same argument! Because they want all the workers in a field, for all companies, to unite! They do know that the power of a local union is very limited if another company is not bound by it. > This entire comment reeks of corporate propaganda. Unions aren't a silver bullet against worker exploitation, but having union representation is a hell of a lot better than not. More like reeks of someone from a country that has constitutional protections for unions and have worst productivity, highest prices, high unemployement, tariffs and low purchasing power.

patmcc 8y ago

1) Lots of unions and guilds don't operate like this; maybe you get more based on seniority, education, performance reviews, by hitting targets, or some other measure. Maybe the guild (think of the hollywood ones; writers and actors guilds) sets a minimum pay but you're able to negotiate for more. Union=same salaries is far too simplistic, there are lots of ways this can be negotiated. 2) Same is true for non-union workplaces - you don't like how a place is run I guess you're going to be unhappy there. With a union (that you can take part in, vote for your leaders, vote on your contract, etc.) maybe you can change that. 3) Sure, if your union/leadership is corrupt. Vote the bastards out then. With no union...the company just keeps that money that would have been used to bribe a union official. Not clear to me that's better for the worker. 4) Maybe. Maybe the union attracts better employees, improves retention, etc. and leads to a better and more profitable workplace. Maybe the whole industry gets unionized so it's an even playing field and the owners of all companies lose (and workers gain). I certainly think it's possible unions reduce the total amount of wealth generated from a system. But so what? I think society would be better of if, for example, Walmart made $90b instead of $100b and the workers gained $9b. (Numbers completely made up, of course).

legostormtroopr 8y ago
I have yet to see a union that would support management firing an underperforming employee, but have seen many that would protect underperformers. I've also never heard of a union that supported performance pay, because by the law of average most of their members will be under average, and they wouldn't want to irritate them.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Any union worth a damn should always fight any performance based pay because it goes contrary to their interests.
  - legostormtroopr 8y ago
    Except they don't.

nsriv 8y ago

This is a cartoonishly naive idea of the operations of a union. 1) Unions set wage minimums and working conditions. You're free to negotiate for more. Underachieving workers receive more, and overachieving workers also receive more because the floor for their negotiations are raised. 2) Employees who do not like the operations of their union have a democratic stake in changing it, or can run for leadership positions themselves. Without a union, their only option for a grievance is to work elsewhere, which is not always feasible (location, family, accrued benefits). 3) Workers have skin in the game and union dues to pay. It's not unheard of for workers to threaten union leadership with non-payment to force a radical leadership change, and there's always the more measured approach of union elections. 4) This is a critical mass problem. There was no decrease in productivity when unionized workplaces were the standard. Without unions you have skyrocketing productivity but wage stagnation. Eventually the wage stagnation turns into a drag on productivity, but in the meantime the company gets rich. It depends on what you prioritize. EDIT: patmcc has a much better response than my own.

stale2002 8y ago
.
- civilitty 8y ago
  What is "the union?" What is "the contract?" Each union has its own organizational structures, rules, and contracts that can sometimes including a ban on union members negotiating for higher pay for themselves. None of the unions that I am familiar with have such a restriction except for one union for civil servants.
  - aseipp 8y ago
    You're not going to get an answer, because the person you're dealing with has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

shkkmo 8y ago

Many of you points are solid reasons why mandatory union membership/dues can cause problems. However this is quite clearly false: > Unions are not economically efficient organizations. They are politically efficient, so they serve a great political purpose, but their work in the economic sphere is only destructive. Unions can be quite economically productive and at their best can provide productivity bonuses to companies that work with them. The problem is balancing the power between the union and the company to get cooperation and increases in productivity. When Unions get too powerful, they start looking out for their own interests rather than those of their members, to the detriment of the workers and the company. When companies become to powerful, they can suppress union membership and the collective negotiating power of their workers, to the detriment of the workers and the market.

conanbatt 8y ago
Unions in effect are powerful only when they can change their income without affecting their productivity. Voluntary unions can achieve productivity gains by being another form of organization, that I grant and thats why I see value in freedom of association. But that is not the union people imagine or want when bernie Sanders calls for them. They imagine the power of changing wages at will.

bsder 8y ago

> 1) that all employees regardless of their individual contribution get the same salaries, meaning that over-achieving workers will work less, and under-achieving workers will not work more. (a.k.a. elimination of incentives) Why does everybody always assume that they will always be the overachievers? This seems to be a particular fault in the HN readership. The problem is that you WILL have some off times. You will get sick and you will age. You will be "merely average" at some point. Should the company be able to fire you after 20 years because someone new might be more productive? This was far more critical in places like the steel mills where the work itself guaranteed that you would get sick. "Nobody ever retires from the car shop" was one of the mantras at Bethlehem Steel--you wound up dead of something caused by working around toxic crap all your life.

conanbatt 8y ago
You are missing the point: when wages are negotiated by power, productivity is a secondary goal if any. As soon as productivity departs wages, you will see it go to any direction, and most likely, down. And if productivity goes down, you better be damn sure wages are going down as well. > Should the company be able to fire you after 20 years because someone new might be more productive? That will be desired if by union negotiation you are forced to pay both equally. But if you allow for different wages that can be re-negotiated at any point.

rhacker 8y ago

I have met a lot of people that have, at one point or another, been on the non-union side of the negotiating table, that sound exactly like this.