5 ms·

Not strange. It's cheaper to bust the union and fire those involved, and pay out for the ensuing lawsuits (whether just to lawyers or lawyers + settlement) than

Not strange. It's cheaper to bust the union and fire those involved, and pay out for the ensuing lawsuits (whether just to lawyers or lawyers + settlement) than to pay higher wages and provide better benefits. Or at least, that's what they think, and I'm sure someone has done some sort of math to validate this course of action (whether or not it's correct). And companies rarely care about their employees or anything other than profit / bonuses they get from that profit.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly make changes in reaction to changing market conditions.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly make changes in reaction to changing market conditions. You could say similar things about authoritarian governmental forms. Like democracy, unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes.
  - syshum 7y ago
    >>>Like democracy, Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. >>unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes. In theory that is true, but that largely depends on the size of the union, and the size of the company the union is negotiating with. I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. Citation most certainly needed. While democracy is admittedly imperfect, it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. The only plausible theory that supports your claim is that all decisions in democracies are made to benefit some corporate/financial elite, but the election of Trump rather than Clinton (which none of these elite groups wanted) is pretty strong and straightforward evidence against that. > I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business Maybe it was true that union was wrong in that case (your story is far too vague to verify), however it's plausible other unions were right in other, similar cases. Typically, management's priority is to be as generous as possible to the shareholders, not the workers. > "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for My comment was a pretty straightforward observation that people with power tend to make decisions that benefit themselves, tend put far less weight on the interests of those without the political power to influence them, and a solution is to spread political power more widely. How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there, and if you're going to to that, you're not worth talking to.
      - syshum 7y ago
        >Citation most certainly needed. One of the More Recent and referenced ones I am aware of https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. >it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. If people in a democracy were really free what control we see today would not even be possible. It is but with the grace and consent of the government do people have freedom. That is inverse of how it is suppose to be, where by the government is formed on the consent of the governed. When we have teenagers in Wisconsin being threaten with arrest for disorderly conduct for an Instagram post I think we can safely say we have transitioned into an Authoritarian form of governance, that is just one of 1000's of examples I can cite > How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments.
  - cloverich 7y ago
    That's true but the difference is companies can compete and go out of business, and generally rely on willful consumption of their products.
- kjaftaedi 7y ago
  that advantage goes to the business. some societies find a preference for giving advantages to workers. neither is objectively right or wrong, it's just a question of priorities.
rubyn00bie 7y ago
I would say this is largely because business management and ownership are only interested in short term returns. They have an extreme amount of incentive to only return "now," with no thought as to the true cost. That is to say, they won't be around long enough for the externalities to materialize on the balance sheet so they don't care. /shrug it's a fairly shitty world we live
syshum 7y ago
In some ways is not about the direct costs of the union, it is about the indirect costs that a union brings. The work force becomes much more inflexible, and everything has to be negotiated at the group level. Most unions also bring in Seniority over merit which make its harder to replace long tenure employees that have become complacent, and often people use the Union as a shield from Disciplinary actions. I known a few people that have went through the union fight, they thought everything would be better with the union. After the voted in the union their insurance was reduced, they did get a $1 / hr raise, but the union dues were about $0.90 per hour so.... Productivity and output at that factory dropped like a stone as people believe (and proved to be true) that the union would protect them from termination. with in 3 years the factory was closed.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly make changes in reaction to changing market conditions.

ardy42 7y ago
> The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly make changes in reaction to changing market conditions. You could say similar things about authoritarian governmental forms. Like democracy, unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes.
- syshum 7y ago
  >>>Like democracy, Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. >>unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes. In theory that is true, but that largely depends on the size of the union, and the size of the company the union is negotiating with. I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many many studies have proven this. Citation most certainly needed. While democracy is admittedly imperfect, it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. The only plausible theory that supports your claim is that all decisions in democracies are made to benefit some corporate/financial elite, but the election of Trump rather than Clinton (which none of these elite groups wanted) is pretty strong and straightforward evidence against that. > I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business Maybe it was true that union was wrong in that case (your story is far too vague to verify), however it's plausible other unions were right in other, similar cases. Typically, management's priority is to be as generous as possible to the shareholders, not the workers. > "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for My comment was a pretty straightforward observation that people with power tend to make decisions that benefit themselves, tend put far less weight on the interests of those without the political power to influence them, and a solution is to spread political power more widely. How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there, and if you're going to to that, you're not worth talking to.
    - syshum 7y ago
      >Citation most certainly needed. One of the More Recent and referenced ones I am aware of https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. >it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. If people in a democracy were really free what control we see today would not even be possible. It is but with the grace and consent of the government do people have freedom. That is inverse of how it is suppose to be, where by the government is formed on the consent of the governed. When we have teenagers in Wisconsin being threaten with arrest for disorderly conduct for an Instagram post I think we can safely say we have transitioned into an Authoritarian form of governance, that is just one of 1000's of examples I can cite > How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments.
- cloverich 7y ago
  That's true but the difference is companies can compete and go out of business, and generally rely on willful consumption of their products.
kjaftaedi 7y ago
that advantage goes to the business. some societies find a preference for giving advantages to workers. neither is objectively right or wrong, it's just a question of priorities.

rubyn00bie 7y ago

I would say this is largely because business management and ownership are only interested in short term returns. They have an extreme amount of incentive to only return "now," with no thought as to the true cost. That is to say, they won't be around long enough for the externalities to materialize on the balance sheet so they don't care. /shrug it's a fairly shitty world we live

syshum 7y ago

In some ways is not about the direct costs of the union, it is about the indirect costs that a union brings. The work force becomes much more inflexible, and everything has to be negotiated at the group level. Most unions also bring in Seniority over merit which make its harder to replace long tenure employees that have become complacent, and often people use the Union as a shield from Disciplinary actions. I known a few people that have went through the union fight, they thought everything would be better with the union. After the voted in the union their insurance was reduced, they did get a $1 / hr raise, but the union dues were about $0.90 per hour so.... Productivity and output at that factory dropped like a stone as people believe (and proved to be true) that the union would protect them from termination. with in 3 years the factory was closed.