3 ms·
> - Rampant corruption (i.e. Teamsters in the 60s is the most egregious example, but probably even a lot of current unions are rife with corruption) > - Racket
by devoply 7y ago
> - Rampant corruption (i.e. Teamsters in the 60s is the most egregious example, but probably even a lot of current unions are rife with corruption)
> - Racketeering (i.e. like what happened when Theranos tried to move offices)
RICO act which pretty much destroyed unions in the US... the ones which were left and were pretty corrupt.
> - Protecting bad/lazy workers (i.e. impossible-to-fire poor performing employees that do nothing yet collect a paycheck every week)
Union contracts or collective bargaining agreements lay out these sorts of things, and they have to be negotiated in that contract.
> - Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting employees (i.e. "Sorry, we won't let you automate X; too many people would lose jobs")
If all companies were set up with unions then they would all oppose altogether which would not effect the competitiveness of a company... but the entire industry. So such a move would have to be an industry move. This then makes a key industry beholden to not just the shareholders but also the employees when the government goes to set policies for that industry.
- michaelt 7y agoImagine a hypothetical metro system where the drivers were unionised. Imagine driverless trains were possible from a technology and safety perspective. And imagine they were only planned for new lines, and future automation was guaranteed to happen below the rate of driver retirement, so no union members would lose their jobs. Would you expect the union to oppose such automation? If not, what should happen if they did?
- kd5bjo 7y agoIf automation is guaranteed to happen below the retirement rate, then you’re still going to be hiring new, possibly interim, drivers to cover the deficit between retirees and automation. I’d expect the union to be concerned with the career prospects of those not-yet-hired drivers in addition to their current members. Even if the plan theoretically matches up perfectly, reality isn’t so neat and tidy. People decide to retire early or logistical problems prevent the automation from coming online on schedule. Any competent union should be negotiating for a more nuanced transition plan, at least, that accounts for the effects of potential over- or under-staffing scenarios on the workers.
- RhysU 7y ago> Would you expect the union to oppose such automation? Yes. Though the automation as described hurts no workers it kills the union itself.