6 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. I'm

> 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  Does that make the account no longer valid?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.
        crooked-v 8y ago
        No, I'm not. I raised the "across-the-board raises" example to point out that the union obviously would not be opposed to more money for everyone, so there must be a reason they oppose more money for only the specific people chosen by management.
    - davidwparker 8y ago
      He's talking about a promotion. Presumably, that would come with a raise. But not every member of the union would be "promoted".
      - crooked-v 8y ago
        I think you missed my point, which is that management and the union seem to disagree on who exactly most deserves a promotion.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  if unions were not actively trying to sabotage their own companies most of the time, maybe the sentiment would be different. There are several cases when unions actively push to destroy companies just to get short term benefits.
  - yardie 8y ago
    If that’s the case then please list them. I can find many more examples of executives destroying companies and employee livelihoods for short term gain.
  - FridgeSeal 8y ago
    > There are several cases when unions actively push to destroy companies just to get short term benefits. And there are many-fold more cases where managers and execs have ruthlessly driven companies into the ground for their own personal short term gain. That's unequivocally worse than workers trying to protect their livelihoods.
  - aerotwelve 8y ago
    Why would an organized labor force try to sabotage the company they work for? If their company goes bankrupt, they all lose their jobs. I've yet to see a union contract that guarantees the type of golden parachutes that executives routinely line up for themselves (and only for themselves) when their firm goes bust or they start to run for the door. In general, when a company fails, the rank and file have to find new jobs. Executives, on the other hand, never have to work again. We observe this trend over and over again (unionized workforce or not). Given this trend, which side is more likely to be the one that blows the whole thing up?
    - mnsc 8y ago
      Unions: we think we are getting screwed over and want better pay and a safe work place. Company: that seem expensive we will shut down and move the capital to another town and try to hire people that will accept this state of affairs. Company fails Innocent bystander: how could the union be so evil!?
  - 8y ago
crooked-v 8y ago
So who's running the union? Some measure of nonsensicality exists here in the idea of a union composed entirely of warehouse workers that is somehow magically acting against the best interests of those warehouse workers.
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  The fallacy in your reasoning is that there is a unitary “interests of those warehouse workers”. Collective decision making and fiduciary duties are directly contrary to each other but unions are supposed to feature both. The way the circle is squared is that unions don’t in fact represent all their members’ interests, only those of 50% + 1.
  - whatever1 8y ago
    51% is still much more than the 5% that management represents.
  - etatoby 8y ago
    > only those of 50% + 1 If only! In reality, long-living unions create such a layered bureaucratic structure that they don't represent most workers in most matters anymore (case in point: unions in Italy, since decades ago when they were protected by law.)
  - confounded 8y ago
    In my (limited, biased) experience the primary interest of workers is the same everywhere. Hint: it pays off both mortgages and bar tabs.
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      I think the disagreement is that a new worker who is skilled and hard working wants compensation to be based on output. An older worker who has been there for awhile wants compensation to be based on seniority. Workers with big families and medical problems want better benefits while single healthy folks want more cash. The disagreements are that different people want different things.
gnopgnip 8y ago
>Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. If most of the workers are making less now, why would they vote to unionize? Before the union formed did workers get vacation and sick time, or were their unaddressed safety issues, or was management treating employees unfairly? In the US it is a lot of work to convince people to form a union even when the benefits are clear. Companies will bring in professional union busters, force employees to watch anti union propaganda, many employers will illegally fire employees who are pro union, and they will threaten(illegally) to shut down the whole company if a union is formed.
- endtime 8y ago
  > If most of the workers are making less now, why would they vote to unionize? You seem to be confusing the direction of time...
  - lovich 8y ago
    What we're the expected benefits of joining the union that they didn't get then? For instance in most low level jobs I've had like that, just getting a consistent schedule would be worth half the hourly wage, without a bonus all. You'd be able to have a life or a second job. When you don't have a union you get companies ignoring even basics like that and doing random scheduling with leaves you with the inability to do anything but be ready for work, without being paid for the time. There are tons of little things like this that all add up to value that's just as good as money and that we take for granted by being in the tech world
    - angry_octet 8y ago
      Yep there are heaps of reasons. For example, 'zero hours' contracts are all too common now. You have to be available for a shift, but if there is no work they send you home. (Or if you don't suck up to the supervisor he gives you less hours.) It's an unfair one way obligation.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
bg4 8y ago
> a large push by two folks who are no longer there Did they work for the union? Off to the next warehouse to liberate?
etatoby 8y ago
> This union exists to grow itself and for no other reason. This is the case for most unions in Italy, for example, where their existence is protected by law. It's a very sad state of affairs.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  Their existence is almost always protected by law in e.g. the US, but de facto and de jure are not the same thing, and as with many relationships involving asymmetric power, the risk/reward and burden of proof may be too high to justify the actual legal case about illegal actions versus quietly settling things for more/less than you would have originally earned, but with much reduced legal fees.
confounded 8y ago
To be fair, it sounds like your brother is dealing with ‘the other end’ of the union. He’s not necessarily supposed to think it’s a great idea.

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.
        crooked-v 8y ago
        No, I'm not. I raised the "across-the-board raises" example to point out that the union obviously would not be opposed to more money for everyone, so there must be a reason they oppose more money for only the specific people chosen by management.
  - davidwparker 8y ago
    He's talking about a promotion. Presumably, that would come with a raise. But not every member of the union would be "promoted".
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      I think you missed my point, which is that management and the union seem to disagree on who exactly most deserves a promotion.
ekianjo 8y ago
if unions were not actively trying to sabotage their own companies most of the time, maybe the sentiment would be different. There are several cases when unions actively push to destroy companies just to get short term benefits.
- yardie 8y ago
  If that’s the case then please list them. I can find many more examples of executives destroying companies and employee livelihoods for short term gain.
- FridgeSeal 8y ago
  > There are several cases when unions actively push to destroy companies just to get short term benefits. And there are many-fold more cases where managers and execs have ruthlessly driven companies into the ground for their own personal short term gain. That's unequivocally worse than workers trying to protect their livelihoods.
- aerotwelve 8y ago
  Why would an organized labor force try to sabotage the company they work for? If their company goes bankrupt, they all lose their jobs. I've yet to see a union contract that guarantees the type of golden parachutes that executives routinely line up for themselves (and only for themselves) when their firm goes bust or they start to run for the door. In general, when a company fails, the rank and file have to find new jobs. Executives, on the other hand, never have to work again. We observe this trend over and over again (unionized workforce or not). Given this trend, which side is more likely to be the one that blows the whole thing up?
  - mnsc 8y ago
    Unions: we think we are getting screwed over and want better pay and a safe work place. Company: that seem expensive we will shut down and move the capital to another town and try to hire people that will accept this state of affairs. Company fails Innocent bystander: how could the union be so evil!?
- 8y ago

crooked-v 8y ago

So who's running the union? Some measure of nonsensicality exists here in the idea of a union composed entirely of warehouse workers that is somehow magically acting against the best interests of those warehouse workers.

bradleyjg 8y ago
The fallacy in your reasoning is that there is a unitary “interests of those warehouse workers”. Collective decision making and fiduciary duties are directly contrary to each other but unions are supposed to feature both. The way the circle is squared is that unions don’t in fact represent all their members’ interests, only those of 50% + 1.
- whatever1 8y ago
  51% is still much more than the 5% that management represents.
- etatoby 8y ago
  > only those of 50% + 1 If only! In reality, long-living unions create such a layered bureaucratic structure that they don't represent most workers in most matters anymore (case in point: unions in Italy, since decades ago when they were protected by law.)
- confounded 8y ago
  In my (limited, biased) experience the primary interest of workers is the same everywhere. Hint: it pays off both mortgages and bar tabs.
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    I think the disagreement is that a new worker who is skilled and hard working wants compensation to be based on output. An older worker who has been there for awhile wants compensation to be based on seniority. Workers with big families and medical problems want better benefits while single healthy folks want more cash. The disagreements are that different people want different things.

gnopgnip 8y ago

>Most of the warehouse workers are now making _less_ than they were before due to union dues. If most of the workers are making less now, why would they vote to unionize? Before the union formed did workers get vacation and sick time, or were their unaddressed safety issues, or was management treating employees unfairly? In the US it is a lot of work to convince people to form a union even when the benefits are clear. Companies will bring in professional union busters, force employees to watch anti union propaganda, many employers will illegally fire employees who are pro union, and they will threaten(illegally) to shut down the whole company if a union is formed.

endtime 8y ago
> If most of the workers are making less now, why would they vote to unionize? You seem to be confusing the direction of time...
- lovich 8y ago
  What we're the expected benefits of joining the union that they didn't get then? For instance in most low level jobs I've had like that, just getting a consistent schedule would be worth half the hourly wage, without a bonus all. You'd be able to have a life or a second job. When you don't have a union you get companies ignoring even basics like that and doing random scheduling with leaves you with the inability to do anything but be ready for work, without being paid for the time. There are tons of little things like this that all add up to value that's just as good as money and that we take for granted by being in the tech world
  - angry_octet 8y ago
    Yep there are heaps of reasons. For example, 'zero hours' contracts are all too common now. You have to be available for a shift, but if there is no work they send you home. (Or if you don't suck up to the supervisor he gives you less hours.) It's an unfair one way obligation.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago

bg4 8y ago

> a large push by two folks who are no longer there Did they work for the union? Off to the next warehouse to liberate?

etatoby 8y ago

> This union exists to grow itself and for no other reason. This is the case for most unions in Italy, for example, where their existence is protected by law. It's a very sad state of affairs.

rincebrain 8y ago
Their existence is almost always protected by law in e.g. the US, but de facto and de jure are not the same thing, and as with many relationships involving asymmetric power, the risk/reward and burden of proof may be too high to justify the actual legal case about illegal actions versus quietly settling things for more/less than you would have originally earned, but with much reduced legal fees.

confounded 8y ago

To be fair, it sounds like your brother is dealing with ‘the other end’ of the union. He’s not necessarily supposed to think it’s a great idea.