5 ms·

> That's not the case because the US Government and industry has spent the last 150 years crushing unions and weakening them. Anti-union propaganda is rampant.

> That's not the case because the US Government and industry has spent the last 150 years crushing unions and weakening them. Anti-union propaganda is rampant. Well, no, the fact that almost all unions in the US use exclusive representation contracts (compared to Europe, where such contracts are range from "unheard-of in most industries" to "illegal") is not due to anti-union propaganda.

claudeganon 7y ago
You're right. It's because Taft-Hartley was put in place to prevent unions from gaining the same workplace and political power as they have in Europe.
Someone1234 7y ago
Unions being weak in the US is due to anti-union propaganda though, which as you likely know was the point I was making. Very few industries have even a single union let alone competition. Complaining about the lack of competition when union representation has been decimated, seems like pointless bikeshedding. I'll happily talk about the lack of union representation, but "unions bad because of [trivial complaint]" is a distraction.
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > Complaining about the lack of competition when union representation has been decimated, seems like pointless bikeshedding On the contrary, history shows us clearly that the fact that union membership has declined in the US and the fact that union membership in the US is typically on an exclusive representation basis are deeply linked. In fact, you can still draw your same argument ("the US Government and industry has spent the last 150 years crushing unions and weakening them") from this fact - it just has little to do with propaganda, as you claimed. > but "unions bad because of [trivial complaint]" is a distraction. If you want to have that argument, please find someone who said that and argue with them, instead of responding to my post, which is saying something different altogether.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    As I said above I have no interest in diving into these trivial and frankly baseless arguments. Talking about inter-union competition when there are no unions is a huge waste of time and energy. Let's actually have unions first before we worry too much about unions being too powerful. Using it as an argument against creating a single union seems like a distraction.
    - chimeracoder 7y ago
      > Talking about inter-union competition when there are no unions is a huge waste of time and energy. The same factors which led to the rise of exclusive representation are the ones which led to the drop in union representation across the board. If you want to ignore that, fine, but don't be surprised or disappointed when you don't end up with the result you seem to want (more union representation).
    - username90 7y ago
      Unions in Europe are usually optional and are thriving. Unions in USA are usually forced and are not thriving. Don't you think that USA should learn a bit from Europe about this since they are typically far ahead of USA on worker rights issues?
  - dang 7y ago
    This is a fine comment except for the end. You unfortunately have a habit of taking swipes at people you're talking to here. Could you please up your game a bit and omit those? Your comments tend to be quite good otherwise, but it's not ok to break the site guidelines like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - chimeracoder 7y ago
      > This is a fine comment except for the end. You unfortunately have a habit of taking swipes at people you're talking to here. Could you please up your game a bit and omit those? Your comments tend to be quite good otherwise, but it's not ok to break the site guidelines like this. I'll admit that that sentence is a bit dismissive, but it's a deflection in response to a comment which is itself dismissive and aggressive towards me and which is trying to bait an unnecessary argument over an uncharitable reading of my original (innocuous) statement. Hopefully that's evident in context. I'll be honest: there are usernames I recognize by name. There are users who have made a habit of posting aggressive, dismissive, snarky replies to even my blandest comments, often trying to bait an argument and drawing the conversation towards a specific tangent. There are some users who post comments that are "civil" in tone but express racist or homophobic sentiments towards me. (In some cases, it's plainly obvious that they're trying to continue personal grudges from other threads; they've linked directly to the previous thread or copied sections of text verbatim!) In my view, either one goes against the spirit of the guidelines for this website - fostering productive conversation - as well as the letter. Yes, it's true that trying to deflect or cut off an argument like this is a defensive response. But it's a defensive response that's been learned over years of participating on this site, and from seeing moderators take no visible action against people "civilly" directing bigoted comments at individuals, while publicly taking issue with the people defending themselves (albeit impolitely) from those exact comments in the same thread. While that might not be the intention, and while there may be reasons for this (e.g. engaging visibly with the people likely to be receptive feedback as opposed to those who won't), it's the pattern that I (and others) have noticed. I very much appreciate the time and effort that you (and others) put in to running this site, which is exactly why I'm taking the time to write this comment and explain the broader context.

claudeganon 7y ago

You're right. It's because Taft-Hartley was put in place to prevent unions from gaining the same workplace and political power as they have in Europe.

Someone1234 7y ago

Unions being weak in the US is due to anti-union propaganda though, which as you likely know was the point I was making. Very few industries have even a single union let alone competition. Complaining about the lack of competition when union representation has been decimated, seems like pointless bikeshedding. I'll happily talk about the lack of union representation, but "unions bad because of [trivial complaint]" is a distraction.

chimeracoder 7y ago
> Complaining about the lack of competition when union representation has been decimated, seems like pointless bikeshedding On the contrary, history shows us clearly that the fact that union membership has declined in the US and the fact that union membership in the US is typically on an exclusive representation basis are deeply linked. In fact, you can still draw your same argument ("the US Government and industry has spent the last 150 years crushing unions and weakening them") from this fact - it just has little to do with propaganda, as you claimed. > but "unions bad because of [trivial complaint]" is a distraction. If you want to have that argument, please find someone who said that and argue with them, instead of responding to my post, which is saying something different altogether.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  As I said above I have no interest in diving into these trivial and frankly baseless arguments. Talking about inter-union competition when there are no unions is a huge waste of time and energy. Let's actually have unions first before we worry too much about unions being too powerful. Using it as an argument against creating a single union seems like a distraction.
  - chimeracoder 7y ago
    > Talking about inter-union competition when there are no unions is a huge waste of time and energy. The same factors which led to the rise of exclusive representation are the ones which led to the drop in union representation across the board. If you want to ignore that, fine, but don't be surprised or disappointed when you don't end up with the result you seem to want (more union representation).
  - username90 7y ago
    Unions in Europe are usually optional and are thriving. Unions in USA are usually forced and are not thriving. Don't you think that USA should learn a bit from Europe about this since they are typically far ahead of USA on worker rights issues?
- dang 7y ago
  This is a fine comment except for the end. You unfortunately have a habit of taking swipes at people you're talking to here. Could you please up your game a bit and omit those? Your comments tend to be quite good otherwise, but it's not ok to break the site guidelines like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - chimeracoder 7y ago
    > This is a fine comment except for the end. You unfortunately have a habit of taking swipes at people you're talking to here. Could you please up your game a bit and omit those? Your comments tend to be quite good otherwise, but it's not ok to break the site guidelines like this. I'll admit that that sentence is a bit dismissive, but it's a deflection in response to a comment which is itself dismissive and aggressive towards me and which is trying to bait an unnecessary argument over an uncharitable reading of my original (innocuous) statement. Hopefully that's evident in context. I'll be honest: there are usernames I recognize by name. There are users who have made a habit of posting aggressive, dismissive, snarky replies to even my blandest comments, often trying to bait an argument and drawing the conversation towards a specific tangent. There are some users who post comments that are "civil" in tone but express racist or homophobic sentiments towards me. (In some cases, it's plainly obvious that they're trying to continue personal grudges from other threads; they've linked directly to the previous thread or copied sections of text verbatim!) In my view, either one goes against the spirit of the guidelines for this website - fostering productive conversation - as well as the letter. Yes, it's true that trying to deflect or cut off an argument like this is a defensive response. But it's a defensive response that's been learned over years of participating on this site, and from seeing moderators take no visible action against people "civilly" directing bigoted comments at individuals, while publicly taking issue with the people defending themselves (albeit impolitely) from those exact comments in the same thread. While that might not be the intention, and while there may be reasons for this (e.g. engaging visibly with the people likely to be receptive feedback as opposed to those who won't), it's the pattern that I (and others) have noticed. I very much appreciate the time and effort that you (and others) put in to running this site, which is exactly why I'm taking the time to write this comment and explain the broader context.