3 ms·

I wasn't a software developer, I was a machinist manufacturing things that can't easily be offshored or exported, so that wasn't so much a concern. The dispari

I wasn't a software developer, I was a machinist manufacturing things that can't easily be offshored or exported, so that wasn't so much a concern. The disparity between unionized and non-unionized workers in that industry is pretty high. You've got unionized workers starting at $35/h and upwards beyond $50/hour, with included benefits. I've seen non-unionized jobs advertised for as low as $14/h to start with the cap being $25-maybe $30 if you're lucky, without the benefits. The unionized job will also typically be limited to 40h/week. There was no limit on the amount of hours I would have to work. I would regularly be expected to work 50-60 hour weeks, if I got sick, I kept working, if I hurt myself, I kept working, the level of work would always be beyond what the number of staff employed were physically capable of doing. The way I see it, a lot of people fought over the decades so workers could have a reasonable standard of living while not having to endure ridiculous conditions. Unions were at the fore in the fight for this. Businesses have shown time and time again that they're willing to pay as little for as much labour as possible. When it comes down to it, while workers are replaceable to an extent, they are what brings a business profit and to most businesses, they're valued among the least worthwhile of its assets. Unions force businesses to care about employees and though, I know this isn't really a crowd who can relate, but if you don't own a business and you are employed by someone, then unions have your best interests in mind. They're probably some of the very few entities in this world that do.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
It sounds like you were working in one of the industries where the employer was in a consolidated market, so they could absorb the cost of the union without becoming uncompetitive. That can in theory benefit the union workers, but it comes at the expense of the company's customers, which at scale are ultimately the workers again. It's also generally not a stable equilibrium, because monopolies are bad and everybody hates them. At some point the government gets around to smacking them with the righteous hammer of antitrust, or the Japanese start making decent cars and disrupt the US auto conglomerates, the internet comes around and destroys your broadcast radio payola system, and then it all turns to rust. > Businesses have shown time and time again that they're willing to pay as little for as much labour as possible. Well yes of course. That's what they're supposed to do, so they can charge lower prices and get more customers. And then what you're supposed to do as an employee is to take the job you like the most based on working conditions and compensation etc. So a company can offer you $25,000/year for 60 hour weeks and no benefits, but if some other company is offering $35,000/year for 60 hour weeks and no benefits then you take that, until the first company starts offering 40 hour weeks and paid sick leave. A company's ability to underpay people is limited by the willingness of somebody to work for that amount of money. No is a powerful word. This is also why you get rid of the need for so much of this with a UBI. Because it allows people say no, which requires employers to make better offers.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

It sounds like you were working in one of the industries where the employer was in a consolidated market, so they could absorb the cost of the union without becoming uncompetitive. That can in theory benefit the union workers, but it comes at the expense of the company's customers, which at scale are ultimately the workers again. It's also generally not a stable equilibrium, because monopolies are bad and everybody hates them. At some point the government gets around to smacking them with the righteous hammer of antitrust, or the Japanese start making decent cars and disrupt the US auto conglomerates, the internet comes around and destroys your broadcast radio payola system, and then it all turns to rust. > Businesses have shown time and time again that they're willing to pay as little for as much labour as possible. Well yes of course. That's what they're supposed to do, so they can charge lower prices and get more customers. And then what you're supposed to do as an employee is to take the job you like the most based on working conditions and compensation etc. So a company can offer you $25,000/year for 60 hour weeks and no benefits, but if some other company is offering $35,000/year for 60 hour weeks and no benefits then you take that, until the first company starts offering 40 hour weeks and paid sick leave. A company's ability to underpay people is limited by the willingness of somebody to work for that amount of money. No is a powerful word. This is also why you get rid of the need for so much of this with a UBI. Because it allows people say no, which requires employers to make better offers.