6 ms·
It's simple: workers have less bargaining power than they used to have so they can't demand a share of the profits the way that those at the top can. I'm not a
by weeksie 8y ago
It's simple: workers have less bargaining power than they used to have so they can't demand a share of the profits the way that those at the top can. I'm not a fan of unions because they have the same power-structure problems that any large organizations have, but the rise in pay inequality clearly coincides with the decline of unions.
No idea what the answer is. Whether it's some version of ensuring a worker advocate is on the board of a corporation or that some kind of coop ownership scheme gives employees voting rights, hell I have no idea, but pay inequality won't change on its own.
Workers that have done well are those who can either draw a direct line between their contribution and profits (sales) or are scarce enough to demand high compensation (tech workers). Most everybody else is shit out of luck from a negotiation perspective, at least without some form of collective action.
- hedora 8y agoThe answer is open shop unionization. The US is closed shop, which means you can only have one choice of union, take it or leave it. With open shops, the unions have to compete for your membership so they actually have to do stuff in your interest, or you can make your own union to replace them. With closed shop, you get stuff like the UAW pushing for pay caps on graduate students (really).
- pseudalopex 8y agoIn the US, "closed shop" means the company can only hire union members, which is illegal. "Open shop" means the union has to represent non-members but they don't have to pay for it. It sounds like you're talking about members-only unions.
- maxxxxx 8y agoUnions have to make a comeback. Look at German unions. They are organized over a whole industry, not just companies, have a seat on the board of directors. I think this system works really well.
- TearsInTheRain 8y agoWhy would they though? This doesn't magically happen and unions didn't magically disappear. There are strong disincentives towards forming unions (i.e. the ability to offshore labor) and as long as those exist, nothing will change.
- magduf 8y agoYeah, but that's in Germany. They evolved that system over a long period of time, just like we've evolved our current (dysfunctional) system over a long period of time. You can't just change; that's like telling a devout religious person to just stop believing in that religion and adopt a secular worldview. Sure, the German system may work very well according to actual measurable metrics as seen by multiple independent observers, but extremely religious people don't care about evidence and won't change their beliefs because of it. That's where we are as a society.
- pkhagah 8y agoI'm not confident that Unions would work for huge issue that is coming up - Mass Mechanization. There will be very few jobs Robotics will not be able to replace in a decade or so. This will easily facilitate few people owning large chunks of means of production. I don't see any serious solutions to this issue on the horizon.
- moorhosj 8y ago==Whether it's some version of ensuring a worker advocate is on the board of a corporation or that some kind of coop ownership scheme gives employees voting rights, hell I have no idea, but pay inequality won't change on its own.== Senator Elizabeth Warren is proposing a bill [1] that hits pretty close to these points. It's a unique way to tackle inequality without mandating wage hikes or raising taxes. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-acco...
- weeksie 8y agoHahaha wow, that's awesome. Thanks for the pointer, I'll have to read more deeply before forming an opinion but I love the sentiment.
- jimbokun 8y ago"No idea what the answer is." Unions?
- acover 8y agoUnions seem like a good answer to increasing consolidation of businesses. Even in tech there has been wage/benefit reducing collusion/monopoly behavior. Why are people so anti-union? Would opt-in collective bargaining work better?
- freehunter 8y ago>Why are people so anti-union? Because big corporations hate unions, and big corporations run the US media and own most US politicians.
- st26 8y agoIn the beginning unions were heroes & did great things. In the end they were doing fewer great things and more negative things. Many people alive today were not around to remember the beginning stage, they only read about it in history books, while they lived the end stage. It could be that simple.
- jimbokun 8y agoI think now that unions are disappearing and people in jobs that used to be unionized see their wages and benefits decrease, those people are slowly realizing unions are still doing heroic and great things for their members. Too many people just assumed workers financial situations would continue to improve without unions, which is not really turning out to be true.
- hackeraccount 8y agoUnions are good at providing collective benefits but not so good at individual ones. If you want a retirement package - something that everyone gets without regard to performance. Or vacation days. Unions are the way to go. If you want a raise... this is an unpolitic opinion but unions are not so good at that. They will try to give everyone a raise. This leaves almost everyone unhappy because almost everyone feels they're doing a good job and then slacker they work with is a layabout who should be happy they're not getting fired. And everyone intuitively understands that there's a limited pot of money for salaries - it's a zero sum game. In truth retirement benefits aren't really much different but they aren't viewed that way. Same with vacation.
- ridgeguy 8y agoOne answer is to accept that unions, like other human organizations, will always have power-structure problems but that on balance, we do better when workers have actual bargaining power. Most of the problems with unions could be mitigated by enforced transparency - same as with corporations and governments.
- st26 8y agoon balance, we do better when workers have actual bargaining power. I don't know, look at some of the cities around the country going bankrupt as the bill comes due for union-imposed obligations. I'm not against collective bargaining, but it seems like unions as they were known fifty years ago were destined to eventually collapse and/or make their communities eventually collapse. Now, collective bargaining could just be a cyclical thing- power to the bosses, power to the workers, power back to the bosses. We could be approaching the swing back in the other direction.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThat can just as easily be explained by government officials not doing their duty, and not funding the obligations they promised. During the boom times, they assumed growth would always be huge, so they diverted money meant to go to these funds to cover other shortfalls in budget.
- st26 8y agoIf party A makes unreasonable demands and party B accepts, responsibility does not lie solely with party B.
- fbonetti 8y agoThis doesn't tell the whole story. In states like Illinois, the pension assumptions were unrealistic to begin with. From what I've read, they assumed 7% annual growth and included 3% annual increases to account for inflation. Even if government officials had property invested the funds, we still would've ended up with a massive shortfall compounded over several decades. Unions are incentivized to bargain for as much compensation as possible and politicians are incentivized to give it to them if union workers make up a significant chunk of votes. Politicians don't have to be concerned with whether or not those obligations are realistic because they'll be out of office by the time the whole thing falls apart.
- Alex3917 8y ago> the rise in pay inequality clearly coincides with the decline of unions. You have it completely backwards. The rise in inequality coincides with the rise of unions, because unions favor cash profit sharing over equity.