7 ms·

If a union only kept to things like safety and minimum salaries I could understand the argument better, although I still don’t support them. The problem is when

If a union only kept to things like safety and minimum salaries I could understand the argument better, although I still don’t support them. The problem is when they start putting in seniority rules (as if all employees are replaceable cogs), banning people from helping out with different jobs (“only the pipe fitter can replace this particular screw”), and making it extremely difficult to fire people.

bobthepanda 8y ago
Unions are a very broad umbrella term, like corporations, to describe a type of organized labor. Corporations, unions, and their practices all exit on a spectrum of good and bad.
- seibelj 8y ago
  A union exists to tell the business owner how to run their business by force. The threat is a strike, or worse (damaging equipment and reputation). The reasons to allow a non-owner, non-governmental power like a union to force the business to change can make sense and pull at your heart strings. I would prefer, if we are to encourage unions, that it stays about safety and let the free market sort the rest out. People can always find new jobs.
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    > People can always find new jobs. If that was the case, we would not need unions.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      Well, I don’t believe we need unions. People can find new jobs, they just would prefer not to, but an employee’s preference and the business’ preference do not always match.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        The fact that people COULD find new jobs isn't a counterargument for unions. If collectively nobody works within each given business to improve workers conditions at that business where will all the disaffected workers turn for a better option. Within an industry major players have no reason not to fix conditions at just crappy enough that people don't leave faster than we can hire new cogs. Anyone who things the free market just magically fixes things ought to look at the labor market in the 20s.
        seibelj 8y ago
        This is not the 1920’s, and labor rules (and many different regulations) designed for the 1920’s no longer match reality. Unemployment is near historic lows. Any employee dissatisfied can find a new job. Competition between employers drives better benefits, wages, and working conditions.
        WalterSear 8y ago
        > Any employee dissatisfied can find a new job. That's a presidentially arrogant statement to make, particularly in the middle of a discussion regarding the gig economy. > The public typically perceives a low unemployment rate as reassuring because it suggests that everyone who wants a job has one. But the broader set of jobs data suggests that’s not the case. ”As usual, the consequences of truly no growth in the labor market leaves particularly politicians to emphasize nothing other than the unemployment rate,” Snider says. https://qz.com/1297561/the-dazzling-us-unemployment-rate-is-blinding-americans-to-a-much-darker-reality/ https://qz.com/1297561/the-dazzling-us-unemployment-rate-is-...
        seibelj 8y ago
        The unemployment at historic lows, the stock market booming, and all signs point to a vibrant labor market? Better find an article that claims the unemployment rate doesn't matter and the economy is actually bad, because mainstream statistics disagree! I think you should stop believing conspiracy theories.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    To avoid the threat, negotiate with your workers on fair compensation. It's not really rocket science.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      An employee can also quit and find a new job. It isn’t rocket science - an employee is not a slave.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        How many industries in the US are concentrated in a handful of large companies? There's only Lyft and Uber for rideshare. Drivers could go on their own, but there's no open source platform to just offer services on that's as easy as those companies. During peak surge times, Lyft and Uber are actually more expensive than New York taxi services, but riders will reach for the app out of habit. Left to their own devices, large companies will just collude to fix wages. There needs to be a large-scale counterweight to the large-scale business. https://nypost.com/2014/04/24/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing-allegations-for-a-reported-324m/ https://nypost.com/2014/04/24/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing...
        seibelj 8y ago
        But they don’t have to drive for ridesharing at all...
  - josho 8y ago
    You argue that the business (a collection of individuals) has the right to negotiate with an individual. Then argue that a union (a collection of individuals) should only have limited rights to negotiate with a business in return. Do you see the contradiction in your belief?
    - seibelj 8y ago
      I simply disagree, but can you explain to me why government workers, who by definition have a monopoly on their labor, have the right to unionize and strike, holding the taxpayer hostage?
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        You are moving the goalposts now its not all unions just government workers. Forcing them to work against their will would violate their rights. The government can negotiate for their labor or do without it. In the long run they could hire new workers to the the same job nobody is holding anyone hostage.
        seibelj 8y ago
        Government employee unions are the most powerful unions in America. They can choose not to educate society’s children to be paid more. That is a lot of power.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    Unions are the free market.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      If a business can’t fire an employee because a union demands a younger employer is fired before the older, regardless of performance, this is not a free market.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        That isn't what a free market means.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Nice propaganda, "By force" would be hitting your employer like a pinata until money came out. A union exists to make the exercise of the employees rights more meaningful by doing so collectively. If you acknowledge that an individual employee has a right to ask for more money or changes to how the business is run and decline to come to work its difficult to understand how all employees don't have the same rights collectively. Incidentally this is an instance of the free market. Labor is a market. They are selling YOU their time and collaborating to get a better deal.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      But a business owner can’t fire everyone because they are starting a union, which by your logic they should have the right to do if this is a market. The whole point of a union is to limit what managers can do and tie their hands. So even if the business wants to fire unionized labor and find new and better labor, they can’t. They must now work through a tangle of rules to make changes to their business.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        So even if the business wants to fire unionized labor and find new and better labor, they can’t. Those terms exist precisely to target the abuse you are describing: firing experienced, knowledgeable workers for "better" employees that are inexperienced and know jack-shit about what they're supposed to be doing and whose only qualifications are being cheaper. Let's face it: in most unionized gigs, the contribution of each individual worker isn't significant, so the marginal gains of hiring a "better" worker is generally immaterial to the bottom line. In the cases where that's not true, the union contracts generally have reduced job protections that make it easier for underperforming workers to be let go (on the basis of objective criteria).
        seibelj 8y ago
        Would you support banning automation and other labor-saving devices that eliminate the need for labor? Because that is another alternative.
jkaplowitz 8y ago
There is nothing preventing a workplace from negotiating a unionized employment contract with a more limited scope such as you describe. I share your desire for something less rigid than the (very real!) unions which match the stereotype you describe. Though I would like some intermediate restrictions on the ability of an employer to summarily fire an employee for no good reason, short of extreme difficulty. Like, maybe some advance notice or severance payment in the absence of misconduct - the unemployment insurance regime is often severely inadequate, and gaps in employment make it harder to obtain subsequent jobs. Plus some chance to refute allegations of underperformance makes sense - it can be real underperformance or it can be a cover for discrimination, both happen.
gamblor956 8y ago
Creative unions, like those in Hollywood, don't have seniority rules, and they do an excellent job of protecting their members' interests. They also don't have any of the other problems you describe.
- seibelj 8y ago
  They still have rules about who can be in the union, and increases the cost of film production. You can't simply join the union, it is a guild system. I don't like rules that keep out new employees or drive up the costs of film production.

bobthepanda 8y ago

Unions are a very broad umbrella term, like corporations, to describe a type of organized labor. Corporations, unions, and their practices all exit on a spectrum of good and bad.

seibelj 8y ago
A union exists to tell the business owner how to run their business by force. The threat is a strike, or worse (damaging equipment and reputation). The reasons to allow a non-owner, non-governmental power like a union to force the business to change can make sense and pull at your heart strings. I would prefer, if we are to encourage unions, that it stays about safety and let the free market sort the rest out. People can always find new jobs.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  > People can always find new jobs. If that was the case, we would not need unions.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    Well, I don’t believe we need unions. People can find new jobs, they just would prefer not to, but an employee’s preference and the business’ preference do not always match.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      The fact that people COULD find new jobs isn't a counterargument for unions. If collectively nobody works within each given business to improve workers conditions at that business where will all the disaffected workers turn for a better option. Within an industry major players have no reason not to fix conditions at just crappy enough that people don't leave faster than we can hire new cogs. Anyone who things the free market just magically fixes things ought to look at the labor market in the 20s.
      - seibelj 8y ago
        This is not the 1920’s, and labor rules (and many different regulations) designed for the 1920’s no longer match reality. Unemployment is near historic lows. Any employee dissatisfied can find a new job. Competition between employers drives better benefits, wages, and working conditions.
        WalterSear 8y ago
        > Any employee dissatisfied can find a new job. That's a presidentially arrogant statement to make, particularly in the middle of a discussion regarding the gig economy. > The public typically perceives a low unemployment rate as reassuring because it suggests that everyone who wants a job has one. But the broader set of jobs data suggests that’s not the case. ”As usual, the consequences of truly no growth in the labor market leaves particularly politicians to emphasize nothing other than the unemployment rate,” Snider says. https://qz.com/1297561/the-dazzling-us-unemployment-rate-is-blinding-americans-to-a-much-darker-reality/ https://qz.com/1297561/the-dazzling-us-unemployment-rate-is-...
        seibelj 8y ago
        The unemployment at historic lows, the stock market booming, and all signs point to a vibrant labor market? Better find an article that claims the unemployment rate doesn't matter and the economy is actually bad, because mainstream statistics disagree! I think you should stop believing conspiracy theories.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  To avoid the threat, negotiate with your workers on fair compensation. It's not really rocket science.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    An employee can also quit and find a new job. It isn’t rocket science - an employee is not a slave.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      How many industries in the US are concentrated in a handful of large companies? There's only Lyft and Uber for rideshare. Drivers could go on their own, but there's no open source platform to just offer services on that's as easy as those companies. During peak surge times, Lyft and Uber are actually more expensive than New York taxi services, but riders will reach for the app out of habit. Left to their own devices, large companies will just collude to fix wages. There needs to be a large-scale counterweight to the large-scale business. https://nypost.com/2014/04/24/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing-allegations-for-a-reported-324m/ https://nypost.com/2014/04/24/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing...
      - seibelj 8y ago
        But they don’t have to drive for ridesharing at all...
- josho 8y ago
  You argue that the business (a collection of individuals) has the right to negotiate with an individual. Then argue that a union (a collection of individuals) should only have limited rights to negotiate with a business in return. Do you see the contradiction in your belief?
  - seibelj 8y ago
    I simply disagree, but can you explain to me why government workers, who by definition have a monopoly on their labor, have the right to unionize and strike, holding the taxpayer hostage?
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      You are moving the goalposts now its not all unions just government workers. Forcing them to work against their will would violate their rights. The government can negotiate for their labor or do without it. In the long run they could hire new workers to the the same job nobody is holding anyone hostage.
      - seibelj 8y ago
        Government employee unions are the most powerful unions in America. They can choose not to educate society’s children to be paid more. That is a lot of power.
- amyjess 8y ago
  Unions are the free market.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    If a business can’t fire an employee because a union demands a younger employer is fired before the older, regardless of performance, this is not a free market.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      That isn't what a free market means.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Nice propaganda, "By force" would be hitting your employer like a pinata until money came out. A union exists to make the exercise of the employees rights more meaningful by doing so collectively. If you acknowledge that an individual employee has a right to ask for more money or changes to how the business is run and decline to come to work its difficult to understand how all employees don't have the same rights collectively. Incidentally this is an instance of the free market. Labor is a market. They are selling YOU their time and collaborating to get a better deal.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    But a business owner can’t fire everyone because they are starting a union, which by your logic they should have the right to do if this is a market. The whole point of a union is to limit what managers can do and tie their hands. So even if the business wants to fire unionized labor and find new and better labor, they can’t. They must now work through a tangle of rules to make changes to their business.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      So even if the business wants to fire unionized labor and find new and better labor, they can’t. Those terms exist precisely to target the abuse you are describing: firing experienced, knowledgeable workers for "better" employees that are inexperienced and know jack-shit about what they're supposed to be doing and whose only qualifications are being cheaper. Let's face it: in most unionized gigs, the contribution of each individual worker isn't significant, so the marginal gains of hiring a "better" worker is generally immaterial to the bottom line. In the cases where that's not true, the union contracts generally have reduced job protections that make it easier for underperforming workers to be let go (on the basis of objective criteria).
      - seibelj 8y ago
        Would you support banning automation and other labor-saving devices that eliminate the need for labor? Because that is another alternative.

jkaplowitz 8y ago

There is nothing preventing a workplace from negotiating a unionized employment contract with a more limited scope such as you describe. I share your desire for something less rigid than the (very real!) unions which match the stereotype you describe. Though I would like some intermediate restrictions on the ability of an employer to summarily fire an employee for no good reason, short of extreme difficulty. Like, maybe some advance notice or severance payment in the absence of misconduct - the unemployment insurance regime is often severely inadequate, and gaps in employment make it harder to obtain subsequent jobs. Plus some chance to refute allegations of underperformance makes sense - it can be real underperformance or it can be a cover for discrimination, both happen.

gamblor956 8y ago

Creative unions, like those in Hollywood, don't have seniority rules, and they do an excellent job of protecting their members' interests. They also don't have any of the other problems you describe.

seibelj 8y ago
They still have rules about who can be in the union, and increases the cost of film production. You can't simply join the union, it is a guild system. I don't like rules that keep out new employees or drive up the costs of film production.