5 ms·

One can be pro-organizing but not pro-union.

claudeganon 7y ago
Not sure how you square those two. Could you elaborate? Any less durable form of organizing seems likely to have its work undone by the very well-organized and durable cadre of owners/management
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  Many professions that tend to be highly individualistic and require complex mastery have historically been represented by a Guild. While Guilds these days are sometimes a specialized form of union, the distinctions are often significant. A couple examples that come to mind are the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild of America.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Well, at least in the case of SAG and the WGA, those are essentially just white-collar unions. Neither of those groups would describe themselves as pro-organizing, but opposed to unions.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  To characterize unions-- especially contemporary unions in the United States-- as limited strictly to collective action functions, is factually incomplete and wrong. That unions perform other functions and aim to protect workers in other ways beyond collective action should be a totally uncontroversial statement. Although unions proximately came into existence for the purpose of taking collective action against oppressive employers, it's equally true, and at least as important, to understand that they came into existence in order to fill a regulatory vacuum in labor law. This should prompt some important questions: 1. Should the job of protecting workers from employers properly belong to any entity other than the government? 2. Is filling the regulatory vacuum with regulation theoretically or empirically insufficient to protect workers? 3. Are unions the only means of collective action? 4. Are the functions that unions serve beyond coordinating collective action actually necessary in order to protect workers? Would they still be necessary even if labor law was sufficiently well regulated? My position is this: We should dramatically expand and increase labor regulation and enforcement actions, and we should allow employees to take collective action. Then we should ask ourselves whether unions are still necessary.
  - mike00632 7y ago
    California already has laws that protect employees. Google and other tech companies are abusing loop holes in these laws by calling would-be employees "contractors" to get out of paying them benefits and providing job security.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
One should be both, with a careful eye towards aggressive governance and transparency of your union. No different than if you have equity ownership in a startup, the only difference is that you’re selling your time collectively instead of a product. Unions are just corporations for labor sales. If you don’t like your management, replace them with your vote.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  > Unions are just corporations for labor. Not necessarily, some are democratic, like some in Sweden. The IWW is an example of an alternative to the centralized unions [1]. 1. https://www.iww.org/about/official/OBU https://www.iww.org/about/official/OBU
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    My point is that unions only suck if you let them suck. The devil is in the implementation details, and the effort put forth by members.
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      Certainly.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > My point is that unions only suck if you let them suck. The devil is in the implementation details, and the effort put forth by members. But that's the problem. The employee faces the same asymmetry when dealing with the union as dealing with the employer -- a single individual has difficulty driving a change in organizational behavior. It's harder for an individual to fix a bad union than to leave the company for one without that union, so that's what many people will do. Which makes it even harder for anyone to do it your way, because many of the people who agree that there is a problem will have left.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
revscat 7y ago
Ah yes, the toothless cry of the moderate liberal. “I think climate change is real, I just don’t support carbon taxes/the Green New Deal/anything else.” “I’m opposed to racism, I just don’t support reparations/police reform/my daughter and her black boyfriend meeting my parents.” “Sure, Politician X is corrupt, but I just can’t support impeachment. It’s just too soon.” “I support the labor movement, but just can’t agree with their tactics. They can always just get a better job.”
- ben_jones 7y ago
  The parent brought up a valid point, that organizing can be done without traditional union bureaucracy behind it - and perhaps suggesting sometimes this is a better approach. Then you responded with a completely different set of points attacking the parent poster on completely unrelated topics that you somehow equated to what the parent said. If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    > If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention. This is a very ahistorical take. Tone policing and "moderation in discourse" has a strong connection to the will to maintain status quo. Radical discourse, direct action and even an unpleasant tone have however a rich history of change, both positive and negative.
    - ben_jones 7y ago
      I agree and would point out that my comment does not contradict yours. Respectful and rational discourse doesn’t mean to sit idle while your talked over, rather it means you respect your enemies strengths and rationalize their weaknesses in order to take a position which best supports your cause.
      - 7y ago
rhizome 7y ago
Have you ever worked in a company where a significant number of people had morale-oriented complaints? IME it does not have an effect.
pgrote 7y ago
>One can be pro-organizing but not pro-union. Agree 100%. Im the United States most local and state ballots have measures on them generated by petition drives. Get X number of registered voters to sign a petition and it is on the ballot. I always signs these when the someone approaches me. I may not agree with the cause or be a proponent of the goal, but the group organizing should have the right to appear on the ballot and have citizens votes on it.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Few if any are trying to eliminate the ability to have ballot initiatives, whereas plenty of moneyed individuals are trying to eliminate unions. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
  - pgrote 7y ago
    I think you may have taken my comment out of context. I was replying to the OP when they said: "One can be pro-organizing but not pro-union." My understanding is the OP Was looking at it through the lens of a worker. My comparison was meant to say I support someone's initiative to have something put up for a vote, but that doesn't mean I will vote for it. I could have been plainer in the explanation.
mike00632 7y ago
Do Google and other big companies make the same distinction between labor organizing and unions? Or do they quash it just the same?

Not sure how you square those two. Could you elaborate? Any less durable form of organizing seems likely to have its work undone by the very well-organized and durable cadre of owners/management

dodobirdlord 7y ago
Many professions that tend to be highly individualistic and require complex mastery have historically been represented by a Guild. While Guilds these days are sometimes a specialized form of union, the distinctions are often significant. A couple examples that come to mind are the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild of America.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Well, at least in the case of SAG and the WGA, those are essentially just white-collar unions. Neither of those groups would describe themselves as pro-organizing, but opposed to unions.
staticautomatic 7y ago
To characterize unions-- especially contemporary unions in the United States-- as limited strictly to collective action functions, is factually incomplete and wrong. That unions perform other functions and aim to protect workers in other ways beyond collective action should be a totally uncontroversial statement. Although unions proximately came into existence for the purpose of taking collective action against oppressive employers, it's equally true, and at least as important, to understand that they came into existence in order to fill a regulatory vacuum in labor law. This should prompt some important questions: 1. Should the job of protecting workers from employers properly belong to any entity other than the government? 2. Is filling the regulatory vacuum with regulation theoretically or empirically insufficient to protect workers? 3. Are unions the only means of collective action? 4. Are the functions that unions serve beyond coordinating collective action actually necessary in order to protect workers? Would they still be necessary even if labor law was sufficiently well regulated? My position is this: We should dramatically expand and increase labor regulation and enforcement actions, and we should allow employees to take collective action. Then we should ask ourselves whether unions are still necessary.
- mike00632 7y ago
  California already has laws that protect employees. Google and other tech companies are abusing loop holes in these laws by calling would-be employees "contractors" to get out of paying them benefits and providing job security.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

One should be both, with a careful eye towards aggressive governance and transparency of your union. No different than if you have equity ownership in a startup, the only difference is that you’re selling your time collectively instead of a product. Unions are just corporations for labor sales. If you don’t like your management, replace them with your vote.

guerrilla 7y ago
> Unions are just corporations for labor. Not necessarily, some are democratic, like some in Sweden. The IWW is an example of an alternative to the centralized unions [1]. 1. https://www.iww.org/about/official/OBU https://www.iww.org/about/official/OBU
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  My point is that unions only suck if you let them suck. The devil is in the implementation details, and the effort put forth by members.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    Certainly.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > My point is that unions only suck if you let them suck. The devil is in the implementation details, and the effort put forth by members. But that's the problem. The employee faces the same asymmetry when dealing with the union as dealing with the employer -- a single individual has difficulty driving a change in organizational behavior. It's harder for an individual to fix a bad union than to leave the company for one without that union, so that's what many people will do. Which makes it even harder for anyone to do it your way, because many of the people who agree that there is a problem will have left.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago

revscat 7y ago

Ah yes, the toothless cry of the moderate liberal. “I think climate change is real, I just don’t support carbon taxes/the Green New Deal/anything else.” “I’m opposed to racism, I just don’t support reparations/police reform/my daughter and her black boyfriend meeting my parents.” “Sure, Politician X is corrupt, but I just can’t support impeachment. It’s just too soon.” “I support the labor movement, but just can’t agree with their tactics. They can always just get a better job.”

ben_jones 7y ago
The parent brought up a valid point, that organizing can be done without traditional union bureaucracy behind it - and perhaps suggesting sometimes this is a better approach. Then you responded with a completely different set of points attacking the parent poster on completely unrelated topics that you somehow equated to what the parent said. If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention.
- jahaja 7y ago
  > If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention. This is a very ahistorical take. Tone policing and "moderation in discourse" has a strong connection to the will to maintain status quo. Radical discourse, direct action and even an unpleasant tone have however a rich history of change, both positive and negative.
  - ben_jones 7y ago
    I agree and would point out that my comment does not contradict yours. Respectful and rational discourse doesn’t mean to sit idle while your talked over, rather it means you respect your enemies strengths and rationalize their weaknesses in order to take a position which best supports your cause.
    - 7y ago

rhizome 7y ago

Have you ever worked in a company where a significant number of people had morale-oriented complaints? IME it does not have an effect.

pgrote 7y ago

>One can be pro-organizing but not pro-union. Agree 100%. Im the United States most local and state ballots have measures on them generated by petition drives. Get X number of registered voters to sign a petition and it is on the ballot. I always signs these when the someone approaches me. I may not agree with the cause or be a proponent of the goal, but the group organizing should have the right to appear on the ballot and have citizens votes on it.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Few if any are trying to eliminate the ability to have ballot initiatives, whereas plenty of moneyed individuals are trying to eliminate unions. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
- pgrote 7y ago
  I think you may have taken my comment out of context. I was replying to the OP when they said: "One can be pro-organizing but not pro-union." My understanding is the OP Was looking at it through the lens of a worker. My comparison was meant to say I support someone's initiative to have something put up for a vote, but that doesn't mean I will vote for it. I could have been plainer in the explanation.

mike00632 7y ago

Do Google and other big companies make the same distinction between labor organizing and unions? Or do they quash it just the same?