5 ms·

As long as we’re offering anecdotes, I’m part of a union and I think they have a positive effect on workers and enjoy a generally positive opinion among the emp

As long as we’re offering anecdotes, I’m part of a union and I think they have a positive effect on workers and enjoy a generally positive opinion among the employees. This union is probably less powerful than the one you are talking about as no one is mandated to join, and no one is impossible to fire.

umvi 6y ago
The type of union business owners are terrified of aren't small local unions, but massive NEA-esque mega-unions.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Then they should help local unions (not that local unions would be useful for, say Amazon or Walmart) become a thing and give them incentives not to become part of a big union. Otherwise, substituting some compensation with part-ownership makes it so that the interests of big unions align more with the interests of other stakeholders.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > Then they should help local unions (not that local unions would be useful for, say Amazon or Walmart) become a thing and give them incentives not to become part of a big union. Or, even easier, just pay your workers well, give them decent benefits, and do union busting to prevent them from forming in your company. Why outsource treating workers well to a bureaucratic middleman when you can just treat workers well yourself? (keep in mind this is for small businesses, not mega-corporations) > Otherwise, substituting some compensation with part-ownership makes it so that the interests of big unions align more with the interests of other stakeholders. Wouldn't that corrupt union leadership over time?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      >Or, even easier, just pay your workers well, give them decent benefits, and do union busting to prevent them from forming. Never going to happen, there will always be a point where the company will try to minimize worker salaries as far as it can get away with. >Wouldn't that corrupt union leadership over time? No, you would pay employees using profits in part, and implicate them into the decision-making process. That way the incentives of union-leadership, workers, and stakeholders align. You can also push for union structures that minimize the power of union leadership and instead give it to the rank and file. Basically, making your company a bit more into a worker-coop fixes the issue.
      - umvi 6y ago
        > Never going to happen, there will always be a point where the company will try to minimize worker salaries as far as it can get away with. I disagree. Not every company is public, first of all. So not every company is beholden to shareholders who demand endless growth at any cost. There are lots of private companies that are content with the size they are at, and with the revenue they are generating and aren't tempted to start squeezing their employees.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        But that's not the issue. The issue is competition. Eventually, you have to cut costs in order to be competitive even if you're very nice, and if you read business administration textbooks cutting employee compensation is often the primary way.
        umvi 6y ago
        Ok, so then how does a unionized company stay competitive if it isn't allowed to cut costs by reducing employee compensation? You are suggesting only unions know the effective secret methods of cutting costs that business-textbook-writers are unaware of?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        It's quite simple. They either cut profits, or offer employees equity in compensation for lower wages. That goes against what the owners want, but it helps the workers and maintains the usefulness of the enterprise.
        fiter 6y ago
        I believe in the competitive scenario, there are no profits to cut. It's not clear to me if equity is worth anything if there are no profits to distribute and the company is not growing. I think the point is that whether it is a "nice employer" or a union, the company will be less competitive. This strikes me as a tragedy of the commons which would have to be resolved by legislation to force all market participants to offer the same benefits. (Of course, the difficulty then are participants putside of your legal system, but taroffs could hopefully capture this detail.)
    - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
      Because that runs counter to profit?

umvi 6y ago

The type of union business owners are terrified of aren't small local unions, but massive NEA-esque mega-unions.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Then they should help local unions (not that local unions would be useful for, say Amazon or Walmart) become a thing and give them incentives not to become part of a big union. Otherwise, substituting some compensation with part-ownership makes it so that the interests of big unions align more with the interests of other stakeholders.
- umvi 6y ago
  > Then they should help local unions (not that local unions would be useful for, say Amazon or Walmart) become a thing and give them incentives not to become part of a big union. Or, even easier, just pay your workers well, give them decent benefits, and do union busting to prevent them from forming in your company. Why outsource treating workers well to a bureaucratic middleman when you can just treat workers well yourself? (keep in mind this is for small businesses, not mega-corporations) > Otherwise, substituting some compensation with part-ownership makes it so that the interests of big unions align more with the interests of other stakeholders. Wouldn't that corrupt union leadership over time?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    >Or, even easier, just pay your workers well, give them decent benefits, and do union busting to prevent them from forming. Never going to happen, there will always be a point where the company will try to minimize worker salaries as far as it can get away with. >Wouldn't that corrupt union leadership over time? No, you would pay employees using profits in part, and implicate them into the decision-making process. That way the incentives of union-leadership, workers, and stakeholders align. You can also push for union structures that minimize the power of union leadership and instead give it to the rank and file. Basically, making your company a bit more into a worker-coop fixes the issue.
    - umvi 6y ago
      > Never going to happen, there will always be a point where the company will try to minimize worker salaries as far as it can get away with. I disagree. Not every company is public, first of all. So not every company is beholden to shareholders who demand endless growth at any cost. There are lots of private companies that are content with the size they are at, and with the revenue they are generating and aren't tempted to start squeezing their employees.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        But that's not the issue. The issue is competition. Eventually, you have to cut costs in order to be competitive even if you're very nice, and if you read business administration textbooks cutting employee compensation is often the primary way.
        umvi 6y ago
        Ok, so then how does a unionized company stay competitive if it isn't allowed to cut costs by reducing employee compensation? You are suggesting only unions know the effective secret methods of cutting costs that business-textbook-writers are unaware of?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        It's quite simple. They either cut profits, or offer employees equity in compensation for lower wages. That goes against what the owners want, but it helps the workers and maintains the usefulness of the enterprise.
        fiter 6y ago
        I believe in the competitive scenario, there are no profits to cut. It's not clear to me if equity is worth anything if there are no profits to distribute and the company is not growing. I think the point is that whether it is a "nice employer" or a union, the company will be less competitive. This strikes me as a tragedy of the commons which would have to be resolved by legislation to force all market participants to offer the same benefits. (Of course, the difficulty then are participants putside of your legal system, but taroffs could hopefully capture this detail.)
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    Because that runs counter to profit?