4 ms·

I don't buy this. There's significantly more work involved in organizing a new union vs. improving an existing one. For one thing, the channels of communication

I don't buy this. There's significantly more work involved in organizing a new union vs. improving an existing one. For one thing, the channels of communication in a non-unionized workforce simply do not exist. Companies like Amazon have specific guidelines for identifying organizing behavior, including gathering employee contact information, and they take action accordingly. Under your strategy, you shouldn't start a union until it's too late to start a union.

bargl 7y ago
I think that's a problem with the law not with the process. Some unions are awesome and have done great things, others have really slowed down innovation and made working harder for the people they represent. >Companies like Amazon have specific guidelines for identifying organizing behavior, including gathering employee contact information, and they take action accordingly. That should be illegal. And so should being forced to join a union against your will (which the teachers unions can do). >Under your strategy, you shouldn't start a union until it's too late to start a union. Then how do we have unions in the first place? They were started because of the need for them, but I don't see the back pressure on unions. Maybe we need to give workers freedom to pick which union they want to be part of but I see things as broken in two parts right now. Unions have tremendous staying power, which hurts them in the long run. And it's hard to form a union. I think both things should be fixed.
- salawat 7y ago
  The problem with Unions is that by definition, they never have as much oomph at the table as the employer, since their war chest is a function of what the employer is already paying. In a great touch of irony, this means that the most exploited workers are frequently those who have the most trouble parting with income to support forming a Union. However, it just so happens that by instituting one, the Union can become itself more equal in what it can run down and discover about the company itself, creating a more equal entity sitting across from the corporate lawyers on the other side of the table. What everyone wants is for company and employee alike to just play fair. When only one of you has the financials on your side however... Well that quickly goes out the window. All in all, I think Unions should make a bigger comeback during times when the labor force is getting shafted. Is that time now? I'm not sure. Haven't checked their financials.
  - bargl 7y ago
    Looks like the union negotiated a 30% raise for pilots so, that's a few Xboxes for the pilots. I don't think this ad will be effective. But I see your other points and they're all good. I don't know if the law of unintended consequences would mean union competition became a race to the bottom or a race to the top. But I think some unions are not as effective as others, and I don't know why that is.
    - danaris 7y ago
      I mean, the answer's not all that complicated: Unions are made up of people, and different people have different levels of ability. Some unions elect people to lead them who are corrupt, and want to simply hoard the power for themselves and those closest to them. Some unions elect people to lead them who are incompetent, and no matter how hard they try, they can't achieve the union's goals. And some unions elect people to lead them who have both the desire and the ability to genuinely achieve the union's goals, and make things better for the workers without crippling the business(es) they work for. Looking at long-standing unions, the problem is multiplied further by entrenched attitudes, cultures, and even rules that differentiate them, built up over more than a century. Some of these will likely increase effectiveness, while others will hamper it. All of this is, incidentally, a big part of why most anti-union rhetoric is so frustrating to me: it paints all unions as being one thing (and a bad thing at that), when it's painfully obvious that there is no fundamental requirement for unions to, for instance, make sure that terrible employees are un-fireable. It's just something that's built up in some of the old, crusty ones.

bargl 7y ago

I think that's a problem with the law not with the process. Some unions are awesome and have done great things, others have really slowed down innovation and made working harder for the people they represent. >Companies like Amazon have specific guidelines for identifying organizing behavior, including gathering employee contact information, and they take action accordingly. That should be illegal. And so should being forced to join a union against your will (which the teachers unions can do). >Under your strategy, you shouldn't start a union until it's too late to start a union. Then how do we have unions in the first place? They were started because of the need for them, but I don't see the back pressure on unions. Maybe we need to give workers freedom to pick which union they want to be part of but I see things as broken in two parts right now. Unions have tremendous staying power, which hurts them in the long run. And it's hard to form a union. I think both things should be fixed.

salawat 7y ago
The problem with Unions is that by definition, they never have as much oomph at the table as the employer, since their war chest is a function of what the employer is already paying. In a great touch of irony, this means that the most exploited workers are frequently those who have the most trouble parting with income to support forming a Union. However, it just so happens that by instituting one, the Union can become itself more equal in what it can run down and discover about the company itself, creating a more equal entity sitting across from the corporate lawyers on the other side of the table. What everyone wants is for company and employee alike to just play fair. When only one of you has the financials on your side however... Well that quickly goes out the window. All in all, I think Unions should make a bigger comeback during times when the labor force is getting shafted. Is that time now? I'm not sure. Haven't checked their financials.
- bargl 7y ago
  Looks like the union negotiated a 30% raise for pilots so, that's a few Xboxes for the pilots. I don't think this ad will be effective. But I see your other points and they're all good. I don't know if the law of unintended consequences would mean union competition became a race to the bottom or a race to the top. But I think some unions are not as effective as others, and I don't know why that is.
  - danaris 7y ago
    I mean, the answer's not all that complicated: Unions are made up of people, and different people have different levels of ability. Some unions elect people to lead them who are corrupt, and want to simply hoard the power for themselves and those closest to them. Some unions elect people to lead them who are incompetent, and no matter how hard they try, they can't achieve the union's goals. And some unions elect people to lead them who have both the desire and the ability to genuinely achieve the union's goals, and make things better for the workers without crippling the business(es) they work for. Looking at long-standing unions, the problem is multiplied further by entrenched attitudes, cultures, and even rules that differentiate them, built up over more than a century. Some of these will likely increase effectiveness, while others will hamper it. All of this is, incidentally, a big part of why most anti-union rhetoric is so frustrating to me: it paints all unions as being one thing (and a bad thing at that), when it's painfully obvious that there is no fundamental requirement for unions to, for instance, make sure that terrible employees are un-fireable. It's just something that's built up in some of the old, crusty ones.