4 ms·

If the best argument you can fathom for being anti-union is "puritan morals" I highly recommend you spend 5 minutes researching the issue. This is a good rule o

If the best argument you can fathom for being anti-union is "puritan morals" I highly recommend you spend 5 minutes researching the issue. This is a good rule of thumb for ANY time you are unable to come up with a reasonable argument against your position. I mean, have you EVER changed your mind about an important issue? Were you being stupid or irrational EVERY time you did that, or are some issues legitimately tough to think through and both sides have positions grounded in a reasonable assessment of the available evidence, just perhaps differing weights on that evidence? Whenever someone expresses a strong opinion to me, this is a simple test: "What's the best argument you've heard against your position?" If they can't come up with anything, or resort to an exaggerated caricature of their opponents, I know they are merely being emotional and cannot be trusted, at least on that particular issue.

xg15 8y ago
So what's the better arguments then?
- dx87 8y ago
  Being forced to keep around dead weight because they can't be fired, the potential for an entire company to be shutdown due to a union strike, being forced to only hire individuals who are part of a union, regardless of whether they're the most qualified. For workers, they may be fine with the pay and benefits provided by the company, but get forced to pay union dues and deal with strikes and walkouts because union leadership says so. I'm generally in favor of unions, but there are enough downsides and examples of corrupt unions that they can't be considered objectively good. Also, not all companies treat non-union employees the same as walmart and amazon. My father works for a large multi-national company that is mixed union and non-union, and the non-union employees get paid more than the union employees, and get equivalent raises whenever the union employees get one. Money and benefits for employees aren't really a huge issue for the company, but the threat of a union organized shutdown is, so they pay basically reward the non-union employees for not having an implicit threat of shutting down if they don't get their way.
  - mreome 8y ago
    There is also the association of Unions with Organized Crime in the US. In the early 20th century unions got into bed with, or were infiltrated by, organized criminal organizations and were used to extort other businesses and the government. The legacy of this is an image of corruption and “Union Thugs.” This image is used by management to make these potential issues seem like they are intended to line someone else’s pocket, thus making the idea of Union Dues and Strikes very unappealing. To be clear, I’m generally pro-union as well, as long as the union rules/dues/etc are reasonable, just discussing where US anti-union attitudes might be coming from.
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      A lot of this is the direct result of union busting. Companies hired essentially private militias to come in and bully/repress workers who were attempting to organize. As a result, those workers turned to another group of essentially private militias to help stand up for them. Not that the criminals did this out of the kindness of their hearts. It turns out that being in charge of the Teamsters Union comes in handy when you're in the business of importing illicit goods.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        It's extremely easy for Americans to gloss over the fact that until significant work reforms culminating in the Sherman anti-trust act, it was not unheard of (or, crazily enough, illegal) for super-companies like Standard Oil to enlist the US army in literal massacres with body counts over 100 when unions lead strikes. Being a union leader in the so-called "Gilded Age" of Rockafeller put you in alliance with other anti-government actors of varying quality as a matter of survival. As the government subsequently became more receptive to guaranteeing some degree of workers rights and benefits and limiting the power of super-billionaires, the necessity of allying with these elements fell apart in messy way.
        colejohnson66 8y ago
        The Ludlow Massacre? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
- mreome 8y ago
  In addition to the specifically anti-union views mentioned in other posts, I think the biggest problem in the US is simply an apathy towards the goals/purpose of a Union, caused by sociopolitical views. If I was to tell someone that I’m dealing with poor working conditions at a Job, almost nobody I know would suggest that I organize with other workers to demand improvements. They would tell me to find a new job, or if the issues were egregious enough, sue. There is a general sentiment in the US that bettering one’s situation comes not from improving the situation, but by changing it. If you’re work conditions are terrible, find a new job. If your whole industry is terrible, learn new skills and move to a new industry. If you don’t want to be an exploited worker, become management. I think this is due to the strong expectation of the self-regulation of employment in a free market. But the cost and risk of changing your situation, combined with industries management collectively working together, and the near monopolistic size of some companies, makes such self-regulation unlikely in many industries/fields. This is part of an even larger social class issues where the goal for most people isn’t to improve the conditions for their class, but to get them selves into a higher-class. This ends up pitting everyone against each other in a way that makes organization and collective bargaining very difficult. “… the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires” -- Ronald Wright/John Steinbeck
  - philwelch 8y ago
    If you compare class consciousness between the US and UK, this is bigger than just unions. Britons, from an American perspective, have a mental block that prevents them from even considering the possibility of social mobility, while Americans, from a British perspective, have an irrational faith that social mobility will happen to them. The difference in attitudes isn't altogether surprising. America was settled by people who left situations they were unsatisfied with instead of staying and trying to fix them; that's why they came to America in the first place. Europe was left with the people who decided to stay home and either resign themselves to the situation or try and change things from the inside. Find a new career? Start a new company? Americans are the descendants of people who found a new continent and started their own country. Of course we're not going to see ourselves as held serfs and agitate for better treatment.

xg15 8y ago

So what's the better arguments then?

dx87 8y ago
Being forced to keep around dead weight because they can't be fired, the potential for an entire company to be shutdown due to a union strike, being forced to only hire individuals who are part of a union, regardless of whether they're the most qualified. For workers, they may be fine with the pay and benefits provided by the company, but get forced to pay union dues and deal with strikes and walkouts because union leadership says so. I'm generally in favor of unions, but there are enough downsides and examples of corrupt unions that they can't be considered objectively good. Also, not all companies treat non-union employees the same as walmart and amazon. My father works for a large multi-national company that is mixed union and non-union, and the non-union employees get paid more than the union employees, and get equivalent raises whenever the union employees get one. Money and benefits for employees aren't really a huge issue for the company, but the threat of a union organized shutdown is, so they pay basically reward the non-union employees for not having an implicit threat of shutting down if they don't get their way.
- mreome 8y ago
  There is also the association of Unions with Organized Crime in the US. In the early 20th century unions got into bed with, or were infiltrated by, organized criminal organizations and were used to extort other businesses and the government. The legacy of this is an image of corruption and “Union Thugs.” This image is used by management to make these potential issues seem like they are intended to line someone else’s pocket, thus making the idea of Union Dues and Strikes very unappealing. To be clear, I’m generally pro-union as well, as long as the union rules/dues/etc are reasonable, just discussing where US anti-union attitudes might be coming from.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    A lot of this is the direct result of union busting. Companies hired essentially private militias to come in and bully/repress workers who were attempting to organize. As a result, those workers turned to another group of essentially private militias to help stand up for them. Not that the criminals did this out of the kindness of their hearts. It turns out that being in charge of the Teamsters Union comes in handy when you're in the business of importing illicit goods.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      It's extremely easy for Americans to gloss over the fact that until significant work reforms culminating in the Sherman anti-trust act, it was not unheard of (or, crazily enough, illegal) for super-companies like Standard Oil to enlist the US army in literal massacres with body counts over 100 when unions lead strikes. Being a union leader in the so-called "Gilded Age" of Rockafeller put you in alliance with other anti-government actors of varying quality as a matter of survival. As the government subsequently became more receptive to guaranteeing some degree of workers rights and benefits and limiting the power of super-billionaires, the necessity of allying with these elements fell apart in messy way.
      - colejohnson66 8y ago
        The Ludlow Massacre? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
mreome 8y ago
In addition to the specifically anti-union views mentioned in other posts, I think the biggest problem in the US is simply an apathy towards the goals/purpose of a Union, caused by sociopolitical views. If I was to tell someone that I’m dealing with poor working conditions at a Job, almost nobody I know would suggest that I organize with other workers to demand improvements. They would tell me to find a new job, or if the issues were egregious enough, sue. There is a general sentiment in the US that bettering one’s situation comes not from improving the situation, but by changing it. If you’re work conditions are terrible, find a new job. If your whole industry is terrible, learn new skills and move to a new industry. If you don’t want to be an exploited worker, become management. I think this is due to the strong expectation of the self-regulation of employment in a free market. But the cost and risk of changing your situation, combined with industries management collectively working together, and the near monopolistic size of some companies, makes such self-regulation unlikely in many industries/fields. This is part of an even larger social class issues where the goal for most people isn’t to improve the conditions for their class, but to get them selves into a higher-class. This ends up pitting everyone against each other in a way that makes organization and collective bargaining very difficult. “… the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires” -- Ronald Wright/John Steinbeck
- philwelch 8y ago
  If you compare class consciousness between the US and UK, this is bigger than just unions. Britons, from an American perspective, have a mental block that prevents them from even considering the possibility of social mobility, while Americans, from a British perspective, have an irrational faith that social mobility will happen to them. The difference in attitudes isn't altogether surprising. America was settled by people who left situations they were unsatisfied with instead of staying and trying to fix them; that's why they came to America in the first place. Europe was left with the people who decided to stay home and either resign themselves to the situation or try and change things from the inside. Find a new career? Start a new company? Americans are the descendants of people who found a new continent and started their own country. Of course we're not going to see ourselves as held serfs and agitate for better treatment.