5 ms·

What I don't understand, and you may say that it's the intrenched powers keeping the status quo, is why the US picks such poor implementations of certain ideas.

What I don't understand, and you may say that it's the intrenched powers keeping the status quo, is why the US picks such poor implementations of certain ideas. The article mentions low collective bargaining. Our model, as an American, is pretty much one union per vertical. There is the Teamsters. There are no unions that compete with the Teamsters. I believe that Germany has unions that fight each other for contracts and membership. At the same time our model is one filled with corruption. (Though I've never heard many complain about IBREW corruption.) Our auto union would rather see the company disappear than reduce wages, or have some of their members dismissed. All the while it's common to hear stories of the Auto Workers Union defending drunk forklift drivers making north of 90k a year. If it is just institutional power, why do we defend or allow this? I was watching Killer Mike on Colbert just now. He complained about the plight of blacks in poor communities. It seems like they are a microcosm of the general problems facing this country. He talked about how the governments kept people down. When he mentioned the communities affected (an abridged list I'm sure), they all had democratically elected officials by that community. The party hadn't changed in 60 years. Why do they, and the US in general, allow these failures to continue? Tribalism?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
There are theories like Duverger’s Law[0] to try to account for why a two-party system emerges from the voting conditions in most of the US. Giving the appearance of conceding to collective bargaining, when really just ensuring that a single monopoly union is in their pocket, is just another type of regulatory capture. [0]: < https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > Added: a concise way to understand Duverger’s Law, if you are mathematically inclined, is to say that plurality-rule is like L1 regularization among political parties, tending to force the participation of small parties to zero and create a sparse set of parties (generally only two). Whereas proportional representation is like L2 regularization, allowing non-zero participation by many parties.
Eridrus 8y ago
I think partisanship can explain a bit of these failures. People defend or attack the implementations of ideas based on their ideology, rather than implementation. If you like unions you basically don't want to admit they have problems, because that is ammunition. I'm a bit surprised by the support unions have personally, even when people are aware of their failings. I recently talked to a friend about coat to build public transport in NYC and mentioned how we were, among other things, getting super fucked by unions, and while he was aware of these issues still basically supported unions as a way to improve things for workers. But besides that tangent, can you point to some reading material on good implementations of unions? How can we have unions that advocate for workers, but don't lead to incredibly inefficient workplaces? Because all I basically hear is unions resisting anything that looks like accountability for their members, or efficiency in doing the work.
lkrubner 8y ago
Much of this was determined by the so-called "Battle Of Detroit" of 1948. The USA had just defeated Nazi Germany and was looking to make sure that fascism would never return to Germany, so the USA encouraged the formation of strong labor unions, and supported the law that made unions automatic for large firms. The USA labor unions looked at that and wondered "If we are imposing this on Germany as a good thing, why can't we also get this in the USA?" In particular, there was the issue of who should have seats on the Board Of Directors. It would soon become normal for German labor unions to hold seats on the Board Of Directors at German firms. The USA labor unions wanted the same thing. What resulted was the longest and most bitter set of strikes in the history of the USA up till that time. Everyone understood the stakes -- the future shape of labor relations in the USA. The leadership of the major USA corporations dug in deep to resist the increasing power of the labor unions. The leadership of the major USA corporations were willing to offer higher wages -- essentially they were trying to bribe the workers with money instead of power, with the understanding that power is more important than money. Eventually, the corporations won. Although the workers got higher wages, they were denied control of the corporations. And at that time a so-called Red Scare got going in the USA, a hysteria over Communism, which turned into a dramatic episode of labor-union smashing. The most militant leaders of the labor unions were arrested or blacklisted. After that, what remained of the labor movement in the USA tended to be the least ideological and the most corrupt. The true-believers were chased away during the Red Scare. Those left behind were the ones who could be bought off with money. From that point forward, the labor movement in the USA was to shrink, first slowly, and then after 1970, much more quickly.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  > Although the workers got higher wages, they were denied control of the corporations There is an interesting lesson on giving up control of your rewards in favor of an uncontrollable but larger reward. Stupid humans.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    The labor unions did not have control, but were striking to get that control. Maybe if they don't take the higher wages then end up with nothing, busted and broken. Complicated humans.
gascan 8y ago
This is only speculation, but initially when unions were just getting started, all that concentration of power was probably required to wrest any control away from the company. Then by the time the scales began to tip, the unions suddenly had all the power in the world to prevent other competing unions coming in.
rayiner 8y ago
> The party hadn't changed in 60 years. Why do they, and the US in general, allow these failures to continue? Tribalism? Even though I completely agree with you on the policy issue: Given that the other party is literally harboring white supremacists, is it really a surprise that people in black communities reflexively vote democrat? If you think about it, some of these policies are incredibly bad for them. E.g. public unions divert money intended to help people in need to pay above-market salaries for middle class, mostly white people. Why would folks in black communities keep voting for that? Because they're worried the other side wants to take away their right to vote. When people feel attacked they'll band together with the people who aren't directly attacking them. We just had our republican mayor in Annapolis booted in the blue wave. Larry Hogan is facing a much tighter race than he should. These guys are very moderate and very competent, but when your party is responsible for children being separated from parents, it's a tough sell.
entee 8y ago
One of the reasons labor unions are weak in the US is the Taft-Hartley act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act... Although the article at the top claims it didn't have a major impact on the power of unions, if you read further down and see what the act actually does, it's easy to see how over the longer term it crippled the effectiveness of unions. In short, it made unions less capable of forcing change (by curtailing strike actions) and gave employers much more power to oppose unions (including preventing supervisors from joining or supporting the union). This means a system like that in Germany where the labor union has a seat on the board is explicitly discouraged. Personally I'm ambivalent about unions, but my opinion is shifting a little in favor of collective action in light of how power has shifted between management and labor.
dv_dt 8y ago
I think there was so much union suppression in the US, that in many areas, unions only survived where the company was literally risking peoples lives or chewing up their health, like in heavily industrialized factories. And because those lines have been hard fought for decades, there is little trust.
duxup 8y ago
I think you are on to something. There are powers with an interest in keeping the status quo....but I think it is more often than not on an issue by issue basis and less often about overall social control. Fact is some folks straight up vote against their best interests and others don't vote, ultimately just bad choices are a part of democracy.....and that plays a big part. Also unions in the us really do suck sometimes. My wife is a part of the teachers union and it is a mess.
mnm1 8y ago
Profit. Profit. And more profit. The profit of corporations here in the US is the most important pursuit by government, even when it comes at the expense of jobs or even human lives. Nothing will stand in its way. If you take a closer look at why we have the worst of the worst ideas implemented in the worst way, you'll see it's because someone or some corporation is making a ton of money at the expense of everyone else. This is not an inherent property of capitalism, it's how the US chose to implement its version. Put simply, humans are second-class entities in this system and only the profits of the rich/corporations are first-class entities. When you put this idea into a country built on war, colonialism (carried out towards others), slavery, and oppression, the current status quo should not be surprising.
smsm42 8y ago
> defending drunk forklift drivers making north of 90k a year. That's nothing. How about car washer making $466K? https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/money_for_nothing_working_the_docks_sometimes_mean.html https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/money_for_nothing_... Or in the same place, somebody getting 24/7 salary (literally paying him for existing, double on weekends) up to $517K per year? That's the stories people need to hear. But try to curtail the power of these unions, and there would be cries that "poor workers need living wages" up to the sky. > The party hadn't changed in 60 years. Maybe in another 60 years somebody would think about introducing some competition there. Right now, why would anyone bother to do anything for those people, if their election is assured (provided the party assigns them to the place) anyway?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

There are theories like Duverger’s Law[0] to try to account for why a two-party system emerges from the voting conditions in most of the US. Giving the appearance of conceding to collective bargaining, when really just ensuring that a single monopoly union is in their pocket, is just another type of regulatory capture. [0]: < https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > Added: a concise way to understand Duverger’s Law, if you are mathematically inclined, is to say that plurality-rule is like L1 regularization among political parties, tending to force the participation of small parties to zero and create a sparse set of parties (generally only two). Whereas proportional representation is like L2 regularization, allowing non-zero participation by many parties.

Eridrus 8y ago

I think partisanship can explain a bit of these failures. People defend or attack the implementations of ideas based on their ideology, rather than implementation. If you like unions you basically don't want to admit they have problems, because that is ammunition. I'm a bit surprised by the support unions have personally, even when people are aware of their failings. I recently talked to a friend about coat to build public transport in NYC and mentioned how we were, among other things, getting super fucked by unions, and while he was aware of these issues still basically supported unions as a way to improve things for workers. But besides that tangent, can you point to some reading material on good implementations of unions? How can we have unions that advocate for workers, but don't lead to incredibly inefficient workplaces? Because all I basically hear is unions resisting anything that looks like accountability for their members, or efficiency in doing the work.

lkrubner 8y ago

Much of this was determined by the so-called "Battle Of Detroit" of 1948. The USA had just defeated Nazi Germany and was looking to make sure that fascism would never return to Germany, so the USA encouraged the formation of strong labor unions, and supported the law that made unions automatic for large firms. The USA labor unions looked at that and wondered "If we are imposing this on Germany as a good thing, why can't we also get this in the USA?" In particular, there was the issue of who should have seats on the Board Of Directors. It would soon become normal for German labor unions to hold seats on the Board Of Directors at German firms. The USA labor unions wanted the same thing. What resulted was the longest and most bitter set of strikes in the history of the USA up till that time. Everyone understood the stakes -- the future shape of labor relations in the USA. The leadership of the major USA corporations dug in deep to resist the increasing power of the labor unions. The leadership of the major USA corporations were willing to offer higher wages -- essentially they were trying to bribe the workers with money instead of power, with the understanding that power is more important than money. Eventually, the corporations won. Although the workers got higher wages, they were denied control of the corporations. And at that time a so-called Red Scare got going in the USA, a hysteria over Communism, which turned into a dramatic episode of labor-union smashing. The most militant leaders of the labor unions were arrested or blacklisted. After that, what remained of the labor movement in the USA tended to be the least ideological and the most corrupt. The true-believers were chased away during the Red Scare. Those left behind were the ones who could be bought off with money. From that point forward, the labor movement in the USA was to shrink, first slowly, and then after 1970, much more quickly.

rbanffy 8y ago
> Although the workers got higher wages, they were denied control of the corporations There is an interesting lesson on giving up control of your rewards in favor of an uncontrollable but larger reward. Stupid humans.
- njarboe 8y ago
  The labor unions did not have control, but were striking to get that control. Maybe if they don't take the higher wages then end up with nothing, busted and broken. Complicated humans.

gascan 8y ago

This is only speculation, but initially when unions were just getting started, all that concentration of power was probably required to wrest any control away from the company. Then by the time the scales began to tip, the unions suddenly had all the power in the world to prevent other competing unions coming in.

rayiner 8y ago

> The party hadn't changed in 60 years. Why do they, and the US in general, allow these failures to continue? Tribalism? Even though I completely agree with you on the policy issue: Given that the other party is literally harboring white supremacists, is it really a surprise that people in black communities reflexively vote democrat? If you think about it, some of these policies are incredibly bad for them. E.g. public unions divert money intended to help people in need to pay above-market salaries for middle class, mostly white people. Why would folks in black communities keep voting for that? Because they're worried the other side wants to take away their right to vote. When people feel attacked they'll band together with the people who aren't directly attacking them. We just had our republican mayor in Annapolis booted in the blue wave. Larry Hogan is facing a much tighter race than he should. These guys are very moderate and very competent, but when your party is responsible for children being separated from parents, it's a tough sell.

entee 8y ago

One of the reasons labor unions are weak in the US is the Taft-Hartley act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act... Although the article at the top claims it didn't have a major impact on the power of unions, if you read further down and see what the act actually does, it's easy to see how over the longer term it crippled the effectiveness of unions. In short, it made unions less capable of forcing change (by curtailing strike actions) and gave employers much more power to oppose unions (including preventing supervisors from joining or supporting the union). This means a system like that in Germany where the labor union has a seat on the board is explicitly discouraged. Personally I'm ambivalent about unions, but my opinion is shifting a little in favor of collective action in light of how power has shifted between management and labor.

dv_dt 8y ago

I think there was so much union suppression in the US, that in many areas, unions only survived where the company was literally risking peoples lives or chewing up their health, like in heavily industrialized factories. And because those lines have been hard fought for decades, there is little trust.

duxup 8y ago

I think you are on to something. There are powers with an interest in keeping the status quo....but I think it is more often than not on an issue by issue basis and less often about overall social control. Fact is some folks straight up vote against their best interests and others don't vote, ultimately just bad choices are a part of democracy.....and that plays a big part. Also unions in the us really do suck sometimes. My wife is a part of the teachers union and it is a mess.

mnm1 8y ago

Profit. Profit. And more profit. The profit of corporations here in the US is the most important pursuit by government, even when it comes at the expense of jobs or even human lives. Nothing will stand in its way. If you take a closer look at why we have the worst of the worst ideas implemented in the worst way, you'll see it's because someone or some corporation is making a ton of money at the expense of everyone else. This is not an inherent property of capitalism, it's how the US chose to implement its version. Put simply, humans are second-class entities in this system and only the profits of the rich/corporations are first-class entities. When you put this idea into a country built on war, colonialism (carried out towards others), slavery, and oppression, the current status quo should not be surprising.

smsm42 8y ago

> defending drunk forklift drivers making north of 90k a year. That's nothing. How about car washer making $466K? https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/money_for_nothing_working_the_docks_sometimes_mean.html https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/money_for_nothing_... Or in the same place, somebody getting 24/7 salary (literally paying him for existing, double on weekends) up to $517K per year? That's the stories people need to hear. But try to curtail the power of these unions, and there would be cries that "poor workers need living wages" up to the sky. > The party hadn't changed in 60 years. Maybe in another 60 years somebody would think about introducing some competition there. Right now, why would anyone bother to do anything for those people, if their election is assured (provided the party assigns them to the place) anyway?