3 ms·

Just ditch the Unions and most of the Wagner Act. VW tried to create a workers board in TN similar to the German model, but the UAW got in the way. https://ww

Just ditch the Unions and most of the Wagner Act. VW tried to create a workers board in TN similar to the German model, but the UAW got in the way. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/adversarial-labor-laws-volkswagen-tennesee/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/adversarial-labor-law... I saw a quote from a German labor leader (I think) saying American unions are overly adversarial against firms and don't care about keeping them running. I think a lot of firms would gladly include worker representation in various form an there isn't a need to create laws to require it.

ppseafield 8y ago
Isn't the history of labor abuse, company towns/script, corporate thugs at the ballot boxes, etc., a counterexample? Does Germany have a similar history? IIRC most German engineering firms are privately owned, many of them family businesses. Negotiations would definitely be easier than with typical large, publicly traded US companies. Edit: I should add that I'm not necessarily defending hostile unions, or unions that do more harm than good. On just pointing out that the labor/corporation relationship in the US has been less than friendly.
- zaarn 8y ago
  Germany does have a history of abusing labor, notably from the 1800s, back then if you worked in a factory you likely didn't make enough to live, so your wife worked there too as well as your kids once they're old enough to cry. A lot of social reforms followed eventually, in part due to pressure from worker parties, and we got most of the labor law up to 1919 when the weekly hours worked was limited at 48 hours. Up until 1945 the laws around labor were updated continuously and around 45 they were cleaned up and unified. This included a lot of other stuff like overtime payments, break times, required time between work shifts, etc. Unions also started appearing in that timeframe, first ones in ~1850, and that interacted with the labor law. Around 1870, Labor Unions were integrated into the corporations, which at that point basically consisted of the rich factory owner and the starving workers (cliched, but that was the situation here). The unions immediately went about fixing that and were subsequently banned out of fear (by pressure through the rich factory owners) and then later unbanned again. (Then in the two following wars abused and centralized) The modern history is less interesting, there is some abuse through the unions but in general they had collective bargains which enabled workers to get a labor contract between their union and the corporation which basically sets the hours worked, compensation levels, days off per year and various other parameters. Having such a contract basically rids you of most of the protections afforded by the state since you're now in the union and the union is strong enough to negotiate fair labor conditions for you (if it isn't this doesn't apply). If you're not part of the union then this also doesn't apply, this is only if you're part of the union (though usually the collective labor contract is favorable and people use those even if not in the union). Generally unions don't have a purely negative image (unless they manage to piss off a lot of people like when you effectively halt public transport). Most of them work along with the corporation to protect workers, ie if the corporation is short on profit they'll suggest that instead of firing a lot of people they could reduce hours worked instead.
coredog64 8y ago
It's not just the Wagner Act. I can't recall the exact Supreme Court case, but around the middle of the 20th Century, unions and management were essentially required to have that overly adversarial relationship by equal representation requirements. AIUI, in Germany, if you're a goofball, the union can agree with the company that you shouldn't work there. In the US, absent criminality, the union is required to protect every member with equal vigor. (The original case was brought because of racial discrimination within the union, so I can understand how we got here...)

ppseafield 8y ago

Isn't the history of labor abuse, company towns/script, corporate thugs at the ballot boxes, etc., a counterexample? Does Germany have a similar history? IIRC most German engineering firms are privately owned, many of them family businesses. Negotiations would definitely be easier than with typical large, publicly traded US companies. Edit: I should add that I'm not necessarily defending hostile unions, or unions that do more harm than good. On just pointing out that the labor/corporation relationship in the US has been less than friendly.

zaarn 8y ago
Germany does have a history of abusing labor, notably from the 1800s, back then if you worked in a factory you likely didn't make enough to live, so your wife worked there too as well as your kids once they're old enough to cry. A lot of social reforms followed eventually, in part due to pressure from worker parties, and we got most of the labor law up to 1919 when the weekly hours worked was limited at 48 hours. Up until 1945 the laws around labor were updated continuously and around 45 they were cleaned up and unified. This included a lot of other stuff like overtime payments, break times, required time between work shifts, etc. Unions also started appearing in that timeframe, first ones in ~1850, and that interacted with the labor law. Around 1870, Labor Unions were integrated into the corporations, which at that point basically consisted of the rich factory owner and the starving workers (cliched, but that was the situation here). The unions immediately went about fixing that and were subsequently banned out of fear (by pressure through the rich factory owners) and then later unbanned again. (Then in the two following wars abused and centralized) The modern history is less interesting, there is some abuse through the unions but in general they had collective bargains which enabled workers to get a labor contract between their union and the corporation which basically sets the hours worked, compensation levels, days off per year and various other parameters. Having such a contract basically rids you of most of the protections afforded by the state since you're now in the union and the union is strong enough to negotiate fair labor conditions for you (if it isn't this doesn't apply). If you're not part of the union then this also doesn't apply, this is only if you're part of the union (though usually the collective labor contract is favorable and people use those even if not in the union). Generally unions don't have a purely negative image (unless they manage to piss off a lot of people like when you effectively halt public transport). Most of them work along with the corporation to protect workers, ie if the corporation is short on profit they'll suggest that instead of firing a lot of people they could reduce hours worked instead.

coredog64 8y ago

It's not just the Wagner Act. I can't recall the exact Supreme Court case, but around the middle of the 20th Century, unions and management were essentially required to have that overly adversarial relationship by equal representation requirements. AIUI, in Germany, if you're a goofball, the union can agree with the company that you shouldn't work there. In the US, absent criminality, the union is required to protect every member with equal vigor. (The original case was brought because of racial discrimination within the union, so I can understand how we got here...)