11 ms·

> It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much." I

• moocowtruck 7y ago
  well, USPS has an IT union and I can tell you first hand it is no good for employees, the things you mentioned happening absolutely happen and the place is just a disaster
  • tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
    We have a contract with the USPS IT department and let me tell you, it is absolutely awesome for their employees. They do about half the work we do in twice the amount of time, get paid more, have more holidays (2 weeks + every single federal holiday) and have pensions. Every worker there clocks in at 9, and clocks out at exactly 5, not a single minute past. If you want a meeting or them to get you something, it needs to be scheduled before 4 otherwise there's a good chance people have already started leaving the office for the day. Sometimes I wonder where did I go wrong?
    • mszcz 7y ago
      I don't know if I'd like to work in a place like that. Wouldn't you get lazy after a couple of years? Doesn't this create incentives to deliberately work more slowly? After a couple of more years like that wouldn't you get used to not doing much and then get slaughtered when inevitable change came around? My friend referred to this kind of situation as "being in an ass" ;) Yeah, from time to time there's a smell but it's always warm, comfy and soft ;P
      • kingkawn 7y ago
        This seems like a masochistic justification for being exploited by employers
        • mszcz 7y ago
          Yeah, well, you might be onto something here. I've been told I've not acted in my own self interest a couple of times before :P
      • OldFatCactus 7y ago
        You would get lazy having a 40 hour work week and 2 weeks paid vacation?
        • mszcz 7y ago
          No way. Unpaid overtime sucks. Burnout sucks. What I meant was that that USPS job description sounded to me like a cushy, untouchable asshole replying to emails passive aggressively every other day from 1200-1235hrs. I'm not for exploiting people if that's what you mean. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
          • onion2k 7y ago
            Assuming someone's job is easy, without knowing much about it, and therefore believing they must lazy isn't a good look.
            • mszcz 7y ago
              Well, I'm just drawing from my own experience here. Usually when I worked with people that behaved that way it turned out that that behaviour steemed from their untouchable-ish status. Is it possible that someone behaving that way has legitimate reasons to do so? Sure. I mean I've been wrong before :P It's that I (personal experience, anecdata) didn't encounter many situations like that is all.
      • SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    • yifanlu 7y ago
      If everyone is happier, less stressed, and as a result less productive, then isn’t that a good trade off? Shouldn’t we all strive to work less hours if it means better mental health? That’s what I would wonder.
      • mattmanser 7y ago
        There's tons of evidence that for most people working more than 40 hours actually results in a fall in productivity (that's 9-5). More hours are for show.
        • RHSeeger 7y ago
          As I understand it, it's diminishing returns for a while past 40. Putting in more than 40 hours does get more done, just not as much per hour as the earlier hours.
          • lugg 7y ago
            At a point the negative impact takes a toll on your productivity all week long. We aren't robots. Having a late night today effects my work tomorrow.
          • mattmanser 7y ago
            Nope, that's wrong. You get falling OVERALL productivity.
      • reaperducer 7y ago
        I think mental health is key in this situation. There's a reason that what we now call "mass shootings" used to be called "going postal."
    • stjohnswarts 7y ago
      Is something keeping you back from working for USPS IT?
    • wdb 7y ago
      Pension, more then two weeks holiday, and 9am-5pm workdays sounds like a normal working conditions for an employee?
      • angott 7y ago
        For many Americans, they are not.
        • tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
          It used to be. There are a ton of popular songs from the 60s, 70s and 80s, especially in country music, about "9 to 5" jobs being the gold standard and basically how you had it made if you got one.
      • icelancer 7y ago
        >> Pension >> Normal working conditions for an employee Basically not anywhere except government-related positions.
      • krzyk 7y ago
        Normal for Europe, well almost. Make it a 4 week vacation and we are almost there. There was an example from UK, now for Poland: * 40 hour week (anything above is overtime paid +50% more for first 8 hours during week and day, in weekends or night it is +100%) * 20 or 26 (depending how many years you have worked in your life, usually after 2 years you get 26) + 13 public holidays. * women after birth get 52 weeks off (plus their usual vacation), dads get 2 weeks off to be used during 2 years (the 52 weeks can be split between parents, so a mom can go to work and dad can stay with child for 32 weeks) * on top of that when you are sick and go to doctor he/she can prescribe you a time off (sick off?), which is additional to your normal vacation (this is not limited to any number of days, e.g. when you break your leg you can be a year sick/unable to work), but pays 80% your salary
      • vidarh 7y ago
        I'd never take a job with that little holiday. I'll never understand US attitudes on that matter - on most of Europe only two weeks would be unthinkable.
    • trhway 7y ago
      > it is absolutely awesome for their employees. They do about half the work we do in twice the amount of time how is that awesome? the productive output of the most productive time of their lives is 4 times less. It would be truly awesome of course if they productively worked only 25% of the time with your efficiency and spent the rest 75% on say education, new tech learning, skills improvement, side projects... Unfortunately, i suspect, their time is simply wasted 4 times less efficiently than yours - may be using less efficient tools, processes, nobody cares about anything in particular because there is no point in improvement, etc... I myself work in a very similar environment, a non-FAANG BigCo, my effective productivity is order of magnitude less than it was at previous jobs in particular because we're moving with the speed of midday sleeping flies, and moving any faster would create huge impedance mismatch causing systemic structural stress painfully affecting everybody. Such slowdown isn't good even in the short term as it makes your mind into a mushy soup zen-like diffusing through your skull and merging with the swamp around.
    • chillydawg 7y ago
      Those conditions would actually be illegally poor in the UK for a full time employee. Minimum paid holiday is 22 + 8 days (8 are the public holidays) and everyone must have an employer matched contribution pension of at least 2% of gross salary. Hours are not regulated here but generally 8 per day.
      • jsty 7y ago
        > Hours are not regulated here but generally 8 per day Whilst a lot of employers will have you opt out of the working time directive as part of an employment contract, you can opt back in at any time, limiting your max hours to 48 a week on average: https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maximum-working-hours-and-opting-out https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maxim...
        • cameronbrown 7y ago
          In addition you have the right to opt out of working on Sunday - which obviously has its religious roots.
    • stale2002 7y ago
      > Every worker there clocks in at 9, and clocks out at exactly 5 LUL! Those are amateur numbers, buddy. I do 11-6 maybe, and work at a big 5 tech company making big 5 tech company salaries. And frankly, we aren't working a lot of the time during the day either. And yes, we have the "unlimited" vacation, which usually results in people taking about 4 weeks a year, on average. I think people underestimate how easy it is to work at some of the big tech companies.
      • CameronBarre 7y ago
        Do you have to go into the office or do you work remote?
        • stale2002 7y ago
          I live a couple blocks from the office, so I go in. There are a couple people on the team who work remote, though. Big 5 tech companies are pretty great.
          • cameronbrown 7y ago
            > Big 5 tech companies are pretty great. Out of curiosity - any downsides to your working conditions? You seem pretty happy about everything.
          • CameronBarre 7y ago
            That's cool, I don't make a lot of money at the moment, but I do have nearly unlimited personal freedom working remotely.
      • lawnchair_larry 7y ago
        There is no “Big 5” in tech
        • cameronbrown 7y ago
          FANNG?
    • esophaguse 7y ago
      Are those conditions not normal? 2 weeks vacation plus holidays seems very average.
    • asjw 7y ago
      I have 28 days of holidays + national holidays in Italy, plus paid sick leave, plus 8 hour of permits a month, plus of course pension, which is a legal obligation. And I'm thinking of leaving because as a new company in a larger group they still don't give us meal vouchers like the rest of the companies in the group.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I had several like that. They were at tech and defense BigCo's. You don't need a union to be like that.
• LeoPanthera 7y ago
  > I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both It's become clear in the past few years that a lot of people care less about winning than they do about their "enemies" losing. To them, it doesn't matter if you hurt yourself, as long as you hurt the people who disagree with you as well.
  • SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    What are you referring to?
  • xnyan 7y ago
    "It's become clear", could you please follow up with some examples so that what you are saying become more clear?
    • kortilla 7y ago
      It’s how politics in the US currently work. Liberals vote for “anything not conservative” and conservatives vote for “anything not liberal”. Most of the people I know that voted for Trump don’t even like him. It was just more important to keep Clinton out of office. Most of the people I know that voted for Clinton didn’t even like her, but she wasn’t Trump so she got the vote.
      • 1986 7y ago
        In a system dominated by two parties the only voting choice you have that is worth anything at all is the less-detested one
    • w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
      Well, people voting for republican party are a good example... When you observe their policies, always intended to help corporate interests, you understand their voters are more interested in pissing of black people and the poors than improve their own condition.
• stjohnswarts 7y ago
  On average unions work better for the most people. People on the upper end will not stop contributing or trying, people on the lower end don't matter much anyway. It's the middle that provides most of the advancement.
  • whiddershins 7y ago
    Source?
  • privateSFacct 7y ago
    At least two other data points - I have a friend who worked in a govt agency - doing cool and important work - she left because of the unfirable lifers - while the stories are funny you can’t go to work and perform well in that situation. In high school teacher X was notorious for giving no work and no s*its. He missed lots of his classes so always subs. We thought it was cool (usually easy A). He was there years but my senior year he must have done something way over the line because he was fired midday. Amazingly the gossip never figured out what he did (despite kids w parents on school board)
    • dlp211 7y ago
      Those are nice anecdotes, the data says otherwise. There will always be slackers, they exist in every job and industry.
      • vondur 7y ago
        I’ll admit there’s always slackers in any workplace, but what data are you referring to?
      • kortilla 7y ago
        [citation needed] Eliminating any motivation to perform well is of course going to discourage people who try harder for rewards. That’s basic economics. Claiming that the top performers will continue to innovate and lead when they are compensated the same as the bare minimum clock punchers is extraordinary and requires evidence. About the only place where unions are better (at least the salary negotiating US style ones) are jobs where innovation and efficiency are irrelevant.
• Can_Not 7y ago
  > I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees" Also important to note there is a difference between "bad for employees" and "bad for employees because we're going to retaliate".
• walshemj 7y ago
  Your just repeating some of the anti union messages the union busters hired to oppose organising campaigns.
• peisistratos 7y ago
  > gumming up the negotiating process The negotiation process is the workers trying to keep more of the wealth they themselves create. "Gumming up" is when the people parasitically appropriating surplus labor time from those workers demand more. > insulating low performing employees at the expense of high performing employees Who will insulate us from the heirs expropiating dividend profits from high (and low) performing employees? What hubris that the heirs who do not work want those of us who do work in some Hunger Games competition against one another.
• rdiddly 7y ago
  Yep I agree, and just to be thorough, it's also possible that unions are good for management and bad for employees (let's say the mgt and the union bosses collude to split the difference and shaft the workers), or good for both management and employees (for example better health plan, lower turnover, lower absenteeism, better morale & customer/client service and ultimately greater market success & higher profits). There's no particular reason to assume out-of-hand without further information that the interests of employees and management are intertwined (basically my earlier point), nor that they're separate & opposed (basically your point). But management by opposing the union so strongly is implicitly asserting that at a minimum they believe it'll be bad for management. They can also be wrong vs. right in that prediction. They may also explicitly assert it'll be bad for workers, and be wrong or right in that. Seems like there's a lot of game theory happening here and I bet there's some concise notation for all this. (Not my strong suit.)
• mighty_bander 7y ago
  Oh, come on. If high-performing employees were properly rewarded they wouldn't be voting for a union. Go peddle your feudal protection racket to an audience dumb enough to fall for it.
• skissane 7y ago
  > I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees" What is “good for employees” or “bad for employees” may not be the same for all employees. A policy which favours the interests of one group of employees may disadvantage another. Which group of employees’ interests will a union prioritise? For example, suppose management has budgeted enough for a 2% across the board pay rise. Management has two basic choices about how to distribute this: Option 1) Everyone gets 2% Option 2) Above-average performers get more than 2%, every one else gets 0% If you are an above-average performer, Option 2 is best for you, whereas if you are not, then you will be better off with Option 1. Which of those two options will the union advocate for?
• dv_dt 7y ago
  Why reduce it to terms of bad or good of relation, there is also an element of a union of contractors gaining greater degree self determination instead of management being in a stronger position to dictate terms of employment.
• supercanuck 7y ago
  What if, I know i know this is crazy, but it isn't a zero sum game? What if both could benefit? What could a modern union look like today? We think in terms of unions = bad, but union is simply employees organizing and negotiating as a group.
• sharkjacobs 7y ago
  Wow, looks like anti union activity is heating up right here in the comment section