8 ms·

Some insight as to why someone may be anti union: My union has done nothing perceptible during the course of my employment, outside of protecting employees who

by LitFan 8y ago

Some insight as to why someone may be anti union: My union has done nothing perceptible during the course of my employment, outside of protecting employees who are under performing. My union dues cost 1% of my salary, and my perception is that they're taking that money and spending it on protecting bad employees. I have friends who are higher up in unions at other workplaces, as well as friends who are involved with labor law. The impression all around is that my union and its representatives are "not good". Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lenticular 8y ago
>Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that. True. Unfortunately, many unions are incredibly milquetoast. However, even in such cases the union can still function as sort of an insurance policy against future severe abuses. Folks can also engage with their union: they will listen to workers.
- icelancer 8y ago
  > Folks can also engage with their union: they will listen to workers. Uh, the same group dynamics that cause cliques to form and higher powers within bureaucracies also can happen in unions. This happens regularly, and I've been a part of one, where regular workers were not listened to but the upper "management" of the union (can't use that word though) controlled the fates of everyone below. You needed regular workers to rebel against the union to even get representation against management. All the while they collect dues. Plenty of unions are good. But acting like all of them are, or why you can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to unionize, is really naive.
  - lenticular 8y ago
    Workers are ultimately in control of their union. If the union is doing a bad job, workers can fix it. It just requires coordination and will.
    - icelancer 8y ago
      If the workers are capable of doing this, then they wouldn't need a union. They would represent themselves against management.
      - vkou 8y ago
        No, they couldn't, because unless you bargain collectively, you have a lot more to lose in these negotiations, then your boss does. You derive 100% of your income from your employer. Your employer derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > No, they couldn't, because unless you bargain collectively, you have a lot more to lose in these negotiations, then your boss does. You derive 100% of your income from your employer. Your employer derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you. You derive 100% of your income from your union membership, which is a mandatory term of your employment. Your union derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you. (It actually derives even less than that, because it operates as a syndicate representing workers across multiple employers).
    - ohithereyou 8y ago
      The historic links between unions and political machines and unions and organized crime suggests that the concept of workers fixing a bad union is great in theory but nearly impossible in practice.
      - smogcutter 8y ago
        The historic links between the capital owning class, political machines, and organized paramilitary forces suggests that the concept of individual workers fixing a bad company is great in theory but nearly impossible in practice.
- maxk42 8y ago
  > the union can still function as sort of an insurance policy against future severe abuses Except by the union.
chasing 8y ago
> Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that. I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty." Unions are a tool. That tool can be misused! But it can also be used well for great effect. Sorry your union isn't working well for you.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  You're recommending everyone unionize, even though some unions are shitty and may end up being a net negative for people. But, aren't some businesses or sectors not shitty? Why unionize in nonshitty sectors or businesses?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmazin 8y ago
    It seems prudent to unionize and protect yourself while the business/sector is employee-friendly rather than have to unionize if the employer is taken over etc.
  - egypturnash 8y ago
    Unionizing in a non-shitty sector will give the workers a way to help ensure that the sector continues to not be shitty, both by maintaining a baseline for what a union shop looks like, and by contributing money to politicians who will work to pass laws that help keep the sector free of shittiness.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      But the sector is already doing a good job of being non-shitty without a union. And what about the case where you're in a non-shitty sector, but end up with a shitty union, resulting in a net negative for the employees? Do you just say "Oh well, it was for the greater good. Someone else somewhere has a union which is non-shitty, just in case some day the sector becomes antagonistic with employees"?
jahaja 8y ago
Have you ever considered that you one day could be that "under performing" employee grasping on to their livelihood during a period of poor health, family problems etc?
- LitFan 8y ago
  Under performing was an understatement. I could have as easily said "employees that are asleep at their desks" and it would have been true for some cases. Management doesn't pursue these people because of the effort involved with dealing with the union.
  - barbecue_sauce 8y ago
    You are in a unionized desk job? What is the industry?
    - LitFan 8y ago
      Yes. I work for the software development department of an insurance company.
  - jahaja 8y ago
    This is the good old, but ultimately petty, Pyrrhic victory of wanting to make sure to punish the few freeloaders.
    - AimForTheBushes 8y ago
      Of course you want them punished when you have to pick up their slack.
      - pureliquidhw 8y ago
        I've worked with people who would have produced more for the company collecting their paycheck and just not showing up to work. Don't let the freeloaders distract you, and maybe let the ball drop occasionally so they HAVE to catch it, or prove they can't anymore. Let them hang themselves, no need to punish!
AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Just wondering, why are union dues mandatory even if you do not want to join a union? This to me is the biggest reason to be anti-union.
- sbov 8y ago
  I think at least part of the argument is that if the union spends time and money improving general working conditions, you're benefiting regardless of whether or not you're part of the union.
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    At least if the laws were less hypocritical and applied to all things that improve our living conditions (such as open source software development) then I could understand it, but right now as it is I find it unacceptable.
- htest 8y ago
  In the US mandatory union fees for the public sector were struck down by the supreme court, I'm not sure if this also applies to private sector jobs though. This was due to the Janus v AFSC ruling see. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
- tracker1 8y ago
  Varies from state to state. Some states have union requirements for certain sectors, or as businesses are either unionized or not. Right to work states make it so that there can be no requirement to join a union. Of course Arizona itself has a weird kind of reverse union of hospitals that covers nursing that afaik hasn't been challenged yet, which seems like it would be either a right to work or trust violation. Can't speak to a broader sense.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > Varies from state to state. Some states have union requirements for certain sectors, or as businesses are either unionized or not. Right to work states make it so that there can be no requirement to join a union. Even under right-to-work laws, the employees can still be required to be covered under the union contract. Right-to-work laws just mean that the union can't forcibly withhold or charge dues from people who aren't union members.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pcmaffey 8y ago
Is your salary higher because of the union?
- lenticular 8y ago
  I work for myself now, but I was in a TA/RA union in grad school. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Among other things, they prevented the school from charging us hundreds of dollars extra a quarter in fees. They also commonly protected grad students against illegally long hours as TAs.
- LitFan 8y ago
  For my specific case: I can confidently answer "no" to this question. Unfortunately I don't think I can share the details here.
Ygg2 8y ago
I'd say it's worse than just that. A union is close to useless if capital has global access to labor, and labor can't or won't move globally. Let's say gamedevs unionize. What prevents EA from moving their studios to Poland or China?
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > What prevents EA from moving their studios to Poland or China? Culture, for one thing. Especially game series like Fallout or GTA live from the absurd amount of US-centric cultural references in even the tiniest details.
  - tom_ 8y ago
    GTA is developed in the UK - but I suppose there is at least no language barrier.
  - Ygg2 8y ago
    Really? So you are saying people from China can't chung out copies of NFL with slightly higher numbers? Because those are EA's bread and butter.
vertexFarm 8y ago
Have you ever considered that maybe it's due to past union efforts that they currently don't have massive transgressions they must currently fight against? Sure, we've all heard the anecdotes of a union protecting some guy who probably wasn't competent or cut out for the job. But how do you like your weekends? Benefits? Work/life balance? It's not perfect, but those things would gradually erode away without unions to fight for and defend them. Don't think companies will preserve that forever just out of the goodness of their hearts. Don't think it's just a permanent, inviolate fixture of our culture now. It's a hard-earned way of life that our ancestors carved out for us. Actually, those things are gradually eroding away this very moment, because unions are now terribly weak and most Americans have internalized this contrived hatred of organized labor. It's not going to go well for workers in the future if we're so complacent. Make no mistake, you and I both enjoy the fruits of bitter and intense union battles from previous generations. They may seem unnecessary relics of the past now, but without them we'd be back in tenement housing working 16 hour days and making barely enough money to afford rent and food from the company store very quickly. Lots of industries are already pushing us back to that state. Be grateful your career has a union. It's definitely well worth one percent of your salary.
snarf21 8y ago
All employees are equal, but some employees are more equal than others.
neilk 8y ago
The problem is, this is exactly what you would expect from a union that's working. If the union is successfully scaring the management from pulling any shenanigans on the good workers, then, they have a lot more free time for the borderline cases. As for moral character: let me introduce you to the average person in management at a large corporation! Unions may not always do the right thing. And there are lots of cases out there where unions have too much power or abuse that power. And sometimes you have an annoying co-worker who is so zealous about taking cases to the union that they seem to be in an extractive relationship with the company. But that just means that unions are another human institution. Apparently the nearly-infinite number of cases where management abuses their power doesn't count? Where management is in an extractive relationship with the company? If you want negotiating power over certain issues, for many kinds of workers or concerns, unions are the only game in town.

by LitFan 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lenticular 8y ago

>Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that. True. Unfortunately, many unions are incredibly milquetoast. However, even in such cases the union can still function as sort of an insurance policy against future severe abuses. Folks can also engage with their union: they will listen to workers.

icelancer 8y ago
> Folks can also engage with their union: they will listen to workers. Uh, the same group dynamics that cause cliques to form and higher powers within bureaucracies also can happen in unions. This happens regularly, and I've been a part of one, where regular workers were not listened to but the upper "management" of the union (can't use that word though) controlled the fates of everyone below. You needed regular workers to rebel against the union to even get representation against management. All the while they collect dues. Plenty of unions are good. But acting like all of them are, or why you can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to unionize, is really naive.
- lenticular 8y ago
  Workers are ultimately in control of their union. If the union is doing a bad job, workers can fix it. It just requires coordination and will.
  - icelancer 8y ago
    If the workers are capable of doing this, then they wouldn't need a union. They would represent themselves against management.
    - vkou 8y ago
      No, they couldn't, because unless you bargain collectively, you have a lot more to lose in these negotiations, then your boss does. You derive 100% of your income from your employer. Your employer derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > No, they couldn't, because unless you bargain collectively, you have a lot more to lose in these negotiations, then your boss does. You derive 100% of your income from your employer. Your employer derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you. You derive 100% of your income from your union membership, which is a mandatory term of your employment. Your union derives ~0.01%-1% of their income from you. (It actually derives even less than that, because it operates as a syndicate representing workers across multiple employers).
  - ohithereyou 8y ago
    The historic links between unions and political machines and unions and organized crime suggests that the concept of workers fixing a bad union is great in theory but nearly impossible in practice.
    - smogcutter 8y ago
      The historic links between the capital owning class, political machines, and organized paramilitary forces suggests that the concept of individual workers fixing a bad company is great in theory but nearly impossible in practice.
maxk42 8y ago
> the union can still function as sort of an insurance policy against future severe abuses Except by the union.

chasing 8y ago

> Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that. I see it everywhere, this weird argument that "shitty unions are shitty." Well, yes. "Shitty [anything] is shitty." Unions are a tool. That tool can be misused! But it can also be used well for great effect. Sorry your union isn't working well for you.

oh_sigh 8y ago
You're recommending everyone unionize, even though some unions are shitty and may end up being a net negative for people. But, aren't some businesses or sectors not shitty? Why unionize in nonshitty sectors or businesses?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dmazin 8y ago
  It seems prudent to unionize and protect yourself while the business/sector is employee-friendly rather than have to unionize if the employer is taken over etc.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  Unionizing in a non-shitty sector will give the workers a way to help ensure that the sector continues to not be shitty, both by maintaining a baseline for what a union shop looks like, and by contributing money to politicians who will work to pass laws that help keep the sector free of shittiness.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    But the sector is already doing a good job of being non-shitty without a union. And what about the case where you're in a non-shitty sector, but end up with a shitty union, resulting in a net negative for the employees? Do you just say "Oh well, it was for the greater good. Someone else somewhere has a union which is non-shitty, just in case some day the sector becomes antagonistic with employees"?

jahaja 8y ago

Have you ever considered that you one day could be that "under performing" employee grasping on to their livelihood during a period of poor health, family problems etc?

LitFan 8y ago
Under performing was an understatement. I could have as easily said "employees that are asleep at their desks" and it would have been true for some cases. Management doesn't pursue these people because of the effort involved with dealing with the union.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago
  You are in a unionized desk job? What is the industry?
  - LitFan 8y ago
    Yes. I work for the software development department of an insurance company.
- jahaja 8y ago
  This is the good old, but ultimately petty, Pyrrhic victory of wanting to make sure to punish the few freeloaders.
  - AimForTheBushes 8y ago
    Of course you want them punished when you have to pick up their slack.
    - pureliquidhw 8y ago
      I've worked with people who would have produced more for the company collecting their paycheck and just not showing up to work. Don't let the freeloaders distract you, and maybe let the ball drop occasionally so they HAVE to catch it, or prove they can't anymore. Let them hang themselves, no need to punish!

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

Just wondering, why are union dues mandatory even if you do not want to join a union? This to me is the biggest reason to be anti-union.

sbov 8y ago
I think at least part of the argument is that if the union spends time and money improving general working conditions, you're benefiting regardless of whether or not you're part of the union.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  At least if the laws were less hypocritical and applied to all things that improve our living conditions (such as open source software development) then I could understand it, but right now as it is I find it unacceptable.
htest 8y ago
In the US mandatory union fees for the public sector were struck down by the supreme court, I'm not sure if this also applies to private sector jobs though. This was due to the Janus v AFSC ruling see. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
tracker1 8y ago
Varies from state to state. Some states have union requirements for certain sectors, or as businesses are either unionized or not. Right to work states make it so that there can be no requirement to join a union. Of course Arizona itself has a weird kind of reverse union of hospitals that covers nursing that afaik hasn't been challenged yet, which seems like it would be either a right to work or trust violation. Can't speak to a broader sense.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Varies from state to state. Some states have union requirements for certain sectors, or as businesses are either unionized or not. Right to work states make it so that there can be no requirement to join a union. Even under right-to-work laws, the employees can still be required to be covered under the union contract. Right-to-work laws just mean that the union can't forcibly withhold or charge dues from people who aren't union members.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pcmaffey 8y ago

Is your salary higher because of the union?

lenticular 8y ago
I work for myself now, but I was in a TA/RA union in grad school. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Among other things, they prevented the school from charging us hundreds of dollars extra a quarter in fees. They also commonly protected grad students against illegally long hours as TAs.
LitFan 8y ago
For my specific case: I can confidently answer "no" to this question. Unfortunately I don't think I can share the details here.

Ygg2 8y ago

I'd say it's worse than just that. A union is close to useless if capital has global access to labor, and labor can't or won't move globally. Let's say gamedevs unionize. What prevents EA from moving their studios to Poland or China?

mschuster91 8y ago
> What prevents EA from moving their studios to Poland or China? Culture, for one thing. Especially game series like Fallout or GTA live from the absurd amount of US-centric cultural references in even the tiniest details.
- tom_ 8y ago
  GTA is developed in the UK - but I suppose there is at least no language barrier.
- Ygg2 8y ago
  Really? So you are saying people from China can't chung out copies of NFL with slightly higher numbers? Because those are EA's bread and butter.

vertexFarm 8y ago

Have you ever considered that maybe it's due to past union efforts that they currently don't have massive transgressions they must currently fight against? Sure, we've all heard the anecdotes of a union protecting some guy who probably wasn't competent or cut out for the job. But how do you like your weekends? Benefits? Work/life balance? It's not perfect, but those things would gradually erode away without unions to fight for and defend them. Don't think companies will preserve that forever just out of the goodness of their hearts. Don't think it's just a permanent, inviolate fixture of our culture now. It's a hard-earned way of life that our ancestors carved out for us. Actually, those things are gradually eroding away this very moment, because unions are now terribly weak and most Americans have internalized this contrived hatred of organized labor. It's not going to go well for workers in the future if we're so complacent. Make no mistake, you and I both enjoy the fruits of bitter and intense union battles from previous generations. They may seem unnecessary relics of the past now, but without them we'd be back in tenement housing working 16 hour days and making barely enough money to afford rent and food from the company store very quickly. Lots of industries are already pushing us back to that state. Be grateful your career has a union. It's definitely well worth one percent of your salary.

snarf21 8y ago

All employees are equal, but some employees are more equal than others.

neilk 8y ago

The problem is, this is exactly what you would expect from a union that's working. If the union is successfully scaring the management from pulling any shenanigans on the good workers, then, they have a lot more free time for the borderline cases. As for moral character: let me introduce you to the average person in management at a large corporation! Unions may not always do the right thing. And there are lots of cases out there where unions have too much power or abuse that power. And sometimes you have an annoying co-worker who is so zealous about taking cases to the union that they seem to be in an extractive relationship with the company. But that just means that unions are another human institution. Apparently the nearly-infinite number of cases where management abuses their power doesn't count? Where management is in an extractive relationship with the company? If you want negotiating power over certain issues, for many kinds of workers or concerns, unions are the only game in town.