30 ms·

I think making these arguments at this point shows just how effective the decades long campaign of anti-union propaganda has been. How great did those rockstar

I think making these arguments at this point shows just how effective the decades long campaign of anti-union propaganda has been. How great did those rockstar employees do when google and other massive companies engaged in anti-poaching agreements to drive salaries down? How good do they do when they end up divorced and miserable after putting in yet another 2 months of 100 hour work weeks?

kodablah 8y ago
I think not recognizing the arguments as built instead of propaganda-fed shows how effective the anti-corporate narrative has become. Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. What is with all the appeal to emotion with divorced, miserable, 100 hour work weeks, etc? Most employees did just fine anyways. Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying "but tell that to the employee that was divorced, overworked, blah blah emotional language". At a macro level there are practical concerns.
- tivert 8y ago
  > Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. You could make that same argument against the concept of defense lawyers. How would you feel if you had to defend yourself against criminal charges without a lawyer? Do you think justice would be served if you had to go it alone against a well-funded, experienced team of prosecutors who want to convict? Yes, defense lawyers aren't perfect and can't stop all prosecutorial misconduct, but they still help a lot. Ditto with unions.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  Unionization helps because of the threat of well organized action against the company, including litigation.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  There are many different types of unions, ranging from the destructive (i.e., Teamsters) to the cooperative (Hollywood guild-unions). The anti-union propaganda did an amazing job at making most people think that all unions were like the corrupt Teamsters unions of NYC and Chicago, when most of them are nothing at all like that. Most employees did just fine anyways. Categorically false. Most employees did fine because unions negotiated the labor rules that led to those "fine" working conditions. Those conditions have worsened as unions have lost their leverage.
- ken 8y ago
  > Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. And unions have labor lawyers. Wouldn't it help the prosecution to add positions whose job would be to identify such issues, and which have visibility across employers? Today, without a union, how would you as an individual ever know if companies are colluding against you and other workers? What would you do to cause this offense to be prosecuted? > Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying ... I agree with this sentence, but I draw from it the opposite conclusion. I think most jobs would get value out of a union. I don't understand your logic here. If something is desirable for everyone, then everyone should do it. We shouldn't assume it's not possible for everyone, and therefore conclude that it must not have been desirable in the first place.

kodablah 8y ago

I think not recognizing the arguments as built instead of propaganda-fed shows how effective the anti-corporate narrative has become. Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. What is with all the appeal to emotion with divorced, miserable, 100 hour work weeks, etc? Most employees did just fine anyways. Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying "but tell that to the employee that was divorced, overworked, blah blah emotional language". At a macro level there are practical concerns.

tivert 8y ago
> Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. You could make that same argument against the concept of defense lawyers. How would you feel if you had to defend yourself against criminal charges without a lawyer? Do you think justice would be served if you had to go it alone against a well-funded, experienced team of prosecutors who want to convict? Yes, defense lawyers aren't perfect and can't stop all prosecutorial misconduct, but they still help a lot. Ditto with unions.
anth_anm 8y ago
Unionization helps because of the threat of well organized action against the company, including litigation.
gamblor956 8y ago
There are many different types of unions, ranging from the destructive (i.e., Teamsters) to the cooperative (Hollywood guild-unions). The anti-union propaganda did an amazing job at making most people think that all unions were like the corrupt Teamsters unions of NYC and Chicago, when most of them are nothing at all like that. Most employees did just fine anyways. Categorically false. Most employees did fine because unions negotiated the labor rules that led to those "fine" working conditions. Those conditions have worsened as unions have lost their leverage.
ken 8y ago
> Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. And unions have labor lawyers. Wouldn't it help the prosecution to add positions whose job would be to identify such issues, and which have visibility across employers? Today, without a union, how would you as an individual ever know if companies are colluding against you and other workers? What would you do to cause this offense to be prosecuted? > Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying ... I agree with this sentence, but I draw from it the opposite conclusion. I think most jobs would get value out of a union. I don't understand your logic here. If something is desirable for everyone, then everyone should do it. We shouldn't assume it's not possible for everyone, and therefore conclude that it must not have been desirable in the first place.