8 ms·

A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. The ad

A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. The adversarial nature of the relationship between a workforce and its company is not a result of unions, it exists without unions. It's just that, without unions, companies are free to largely ignore the demands of individual workers. Control over compensation and healthcare "stuff" (and, I'd argue, even days off) is just as important to the well-being of a workforce as worker safety, especially in a country with a relatively weak "social safety net". How exactly does a union show that it is worth negotiating with as an equal without things that demonstrate its power, like strikes and bargaining hold-outs?

mdgrech23 8y ago
Spoken like someone who very little actual real experience with a union.
- sir_branson 8y ago
  Spoken like someone with very little real experience in a union.
sethammons 8y ago
> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. I'm not convinced. My brother's work has a warehouse. The warehouse unionized (a large push by two folks who are no longer there). Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. There are guys that my brother would love to promote and reward with better pay, but the union does not allow that. The union demands such-n-such, the business pushes back. The workers are in the middle and get shitall. This union (at least) exists to grow itself and for no other reason. Now the "office personnel" are not allowed to talk anything union related with the "warehouse folks." It went from "us" to "us" and "them." The office people have to be careful on how they say anything or a union rep can file grievances. When you have to watch your behavior in fear of retribution, I'd say that is adversarial and I would say this happened due to the union.
- empath75 8y ago
  > There are guys that my brother would love to promote Manager complains about unions. I’m absolutely stunned.
  - sethammons 8y ago
    Does that make the account no longer valid? His problem is not "lazy union members," he has folks he thinks are getting screwed over that he would fight for a promotion for.
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      And yet presumably the union would be quite happy with across-the-board raises, so the complaint tries to casually gloss over the implied conflict with management about who deserves a more limited supply of raises.
      - DannyBee 8y ago
        I'm sorry, are you suggesting there should be no pay differentiation for performance at all?
        crooked-v 8y ago
        No, I'm suggesting that management and the union seem to disagree on who exactly has the higher performance in this situation.
        Joky 8y ago
        The only union experience I have was that the whole concept of performance based compensation was something to fight to the teeth (in France, 12y ago). The pay structure was almost exclusively seniority-based.
        jfnixon 8y ago
        No, you aren’t arguing the union has a different idea who has higher performance. You are arguing the case that everyone should be paid more regardless of performance.
InTheArena 8y ago
This is not always true. For example, the union relationship with Eastern Airline, where the union decided that it was better to eventually kill the airline in exchange for a better contract today. (Reference - Hard Landing by Thomas Petzinger). Unions are yet another human organization. Like all human organizations, it in-enviably becomes about sustaining itself, and that sustaining and power structure can become as destructive as corporations themselves to individual rights when the institution is opposed to the something the individual wants or needs.
- PretzelFisch 8y ago
  In most cases it's best to get the money today rather then wait for a future, that may not come to exist.
  - sgc 8y ago
    Kill the cow to eat, who cares about the milk of tomorrow.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > Kill the cow to eat, who cares about the milk of tomorrow. Management is often guilty of this kind of thinking, too. It's not just unions.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9LCR5P5wI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9LCR5P5wI
- bjourne 8y ago
  > the union relationship with Eastern Airline, where the union decided that it was better to eventually kill the airline in exchange for a better contract today. Articles from the time paint a different picture. They claim it was mismanagement that caused the bankruptcy of the airline - not union intervention. See https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-brought-down-by-a-strike-so-bitter-it-became-a-crusade.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-broug..., https://www.jstor.org/stable/20713006?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/20713006?seq=1#metadata_info_ta... or https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=publication https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&co...
dominotw 8y ago
> a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. Isn't this dream of every company to treat their workers as 'equal' interchangeable cogs. Union is co conspirator in this scheme, turn all workers into 'equals' of each other.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  I believe the assertion was, rather than equal in the sense of interchangable, that it is a counterweight to the inherent asymmetry of a large body (company or otherwise) and any individual worker trying to negotiate. In that case, absent other constraints, one party usually has much less reason to accommodate than the other, as not hiring or continuing to employ one worker rarely would deeply impact the company, while the individual is looking at {continuing to commit, committing} a good portion of their available time, along with possibly relocating and however their income is derived, and so has much more to potentially lose by trying to receive even minor concessions. (Footnote: Not all companies necessarily desire their employees be cogs, as some level of {competition,contention} can result in much better outcomes than any of the parties might have achieved on their own, but there is increasingly a sense that some portion of labor will be ever more readily automated with, indeed, fairly literal interchangeable parts, as well as the historical perception you describe, which can yield incredibly toxic cultures that don't care because they can, more or less, train more people whenever someone burns out or leaves because they find something better. )
wernercd 8y ago
> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. You act like it can't be both.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
(Not arguing about benefits or usefulness of unions) As an organization unions have the same prime directive as every other organization, survive (and grow). One of the ways of a union to survive (and grow) is to demonstrate that it takes action and to be adversarial. So many unions tend to be adversarial. In Germany in the past especially smaller unions were highly adversarial to gain ground against larger unions in the same company ("grow").

mdgrech23 8y ago

Spoken like someone who very little actual real experience with a union.

sir_branson 8y ago
Spoken like someone with very little real experience in a union.

sethammons 8y ago

> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. I'm not convinced. My brother's work has a warehouse. The warehouse unionized (a large push by two folks who are no longer there). Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. There are guys that my brother would love to promote and reward with better pay, but the union does not allow that. The union demands such-n-such, the business pushes back. The workers are in the middle and get shitall. This union (at least) exists to grow itself and for no other reason. Now the "office personnel" are not allowed to talk anything union related with the "warehouse folks." It went from "us" to "us" and "them." The office people have to be careful on how they say anything or a union rep can file grievances. When you have to watch your behavior in fear of retribution, I'd say that is adversarial and I would say this happened due to the union.

empath75 8y ago
> There are guys that my brother would love to promote Manager complains about unions. I’m absolutely stunned.
- sethammons 8y ago
  Does that make the account no longer valid? His problem is not "lazy union members," he has folks he thinks are getting screwed over that he would fight for a promotion for.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    And yet presumably the union would be quite happy with across-the-board raises, so the complaint tries to casually gloss over the implied conflict with management about who deserves a more limited supply of raises.
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      I'm sorry, are you suggesting there should be no pay differentiation for performance at all?
      - crooked-v 8y ago
        No, I'm suggesting that management and the union seem to disagree on who exactly has the higher performance in this situation.
        Joky 8y ago
        The only union experience I have was that the whole concept of performance based compensation was something to fight to the teeth (in France, 12y ago). The pay structure was almost exclusively seniority-based.
        jfnixon 8y ago
        No, you aren’t arguing the union has a different idea who has higher performance. You are arguing the case that everyone should be paid more regardless of performance.

InTheArena 8y ago

This is not always true. For example, the union relationship with Eastern Airline, where the union decided that it was better to eventually kill the airline in exchange for a better contract today. (Reference - Hard Landing by Thomas Petzinger). Unions are yet another human organization. Like all human organizations, it in-enviably becomes about sustaining itself, and that sustaining and power structure can become as destructive as corporations themselves to individual rights when the institution is opposed to the something the individual wants or needs.

PretzelFisch 8y ago
In most cases it's best to get the money today rather then wait for a future, that may not come to exist.
- sgc 8y ago
  Kill the cow to eat, who cares about the milk of tomorrow.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Kill the cow to eat, who cares about the milk of tomorrow. Management is often guilty of this kind of thinking, too. It's not just unions.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9LCR5P5wI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9LCR5P5wI
bjourne 8y ago
> the union relationship with Eastern Airline, where the union decided that it was better to eventually kill the airline in exchange for a better contract today. Articles from the time paint a different picture. They claim it was mismanagement that caused the bankruptcy of the airline - not union intervention. See https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-brought-down-by-a-strike-so-bitter-it-became-a-crusade.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-broug..., https://www.jstor.org/stable/20713006?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/20713006?seq=1#metadata_info_ta... or https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=publication https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&co...

dominotw 8y ago

> a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. Isn't this dream of every company to treat their workers as 'equal' interchangeable cogs. Union is co conspirator in this scheme, turn all workers into 'equals' of each other.

rincebrain 8y ago
I believe the assertion was, rather than equal in the sense of interchangable, that it is a counterweight to the inherent asymmetry of a large body (company or otherwise) and any individual worker trying to negotiate. In that case, absent other constraints, one party usually has much less reason to accommodate than the other, as not hiring or continuing to employ one worker rarely would deeply impact the company, while the individual is looking at {continuing to commit, committing} a good portion of their available time, along with possibly relocating and however their income is derived, and so has much more to potentially lose by trying to receive even minor concessions. (Footnote: Not all companies necessarily desire their employees be cogs, as some level of {competition,contention} can result in much better outcomes than any of the parties might have achieved on their own, but there is increasingly a sense that some portion of labor will be ever more readily automated with, indeed, fairly literal interchangeable parts, as well as the historical perception you describe, which can yield incredibly toxic cultures that don't care because they can, more or less, train more people whenever someone burns out or leaves because they find something better. )

wernercd 8y ago

> A company doesn't become adversarial with its workforce because of unions; a company is forced to treat its workforce more as an equal because of unions. You act like it can't be both.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

(Not arguing about benefits or usefulness of unions) As an organization unions have the same prime directive as every other organization, survive (and grow). One of the ways of a union to survive (and grow) is to demonstrate that it takes action and to be adversarial. So many unions tend to be adversarial. In Germany in the past especially smaller unions were highly adversarial to gain ground against larger unions in the same company ("grow").