4 ms·

Unions are hard because employers can basically do whatever the fuck they want to fight the union and they usually only get the NLRB injunction/penalty months/y

by MiroF 6y ago

Unions are hard because employers can basically do whatever the fuck they want to fight the union and they usually only get the NLRB injunction/penalty months/years later, after everyone originally supporting the action has been removed by the company. Some unions are also just in the pocket of management. I have friends who are teamster organizers and they've told me some managers in some industries will actually request unions.

hyperdimension 6y ago
> Some unions are also just in the pocket of management. I honestly believe you on this point, but that is just so crazy that I'd be curious as to the turn of events that would turn out to the union selling out its soul so completely. Unless, of course, that was their intended goal. It just seems so antithetical to the theoretical principles of a union.
- MiroF 6y ago
  I think it's not the union that has sold its soul so much as targeting specific individuals who are important in governing a certain local or something, and getting them to sell out. See, for instance, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/business/gm-fiat-chrysler-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/business/gm-fiat-chrysler... > General Motors has accused Fiat Chrysler of bribing union officials to get a leg up on G.M. in contract negotiations, contending in a lawsuit that its competitor paid for the union’s negotiating team to have a $7,000 dinner shortly after concluding a labor agreement. Fiat Chrysler has called the suit meritless. I think many are interpreting my comment as anti-union, which it was not meant to be. Unions can be coopted by management, but better to have some sort of worker council/representation than none at all.
tdeck 6y ago
To expand a bit, a union is supposed to be democratic - the workers themselves organize to promote their own interests. But many unions that remain these days have become professionalized. They have their own well-paid administration and lobbyists, and their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers. Here is an article I found that goes into this: https://www.labornotes.org/2002/06/corporatization-unions https://www.labornotes.org/2002/06/corporatization-unions
- MiroF 6y ago
  > their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers. I'm curious how you think this differs from traditional practices, generally i think of signing security clauses + political influence as basic union 101. There've always been professional organizers as long as there've been unions. They're hardly "well-paid" by private standards.
  - tdeck 6y ago
    Both styles of union have a long history, but the alternative practice is to rely more heavily on strikes and other workplace actions, and less on pay-to-play politics. It may be "union 101" to sign no-strike clauses but there are unions like the IWW that have always rejected them.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      What you need is a union law similar to germany. In germany, when you apply to a job where a union has created a union employee contract (ie, standardized pay, standardized hours & benefits), then you can choose to use that contract even if you are not part of the union and you are entitled to still do your own contract even if you are in the union. The only time you have to accept certain parts in your contract no choice is if they are mandated by the worker's council, which is voted for democratically by workers from and for a specific company and they can veto anything the company does or demand changes with a 50% share in board votes.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        I don't see how this is different from a US union contract, which is approved by the majority of the local. Generally, the union will not make the dues optional because that is how unions collapse in the US.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      I didn't realize you were referring to no-strike contracts, that's not what a security clause is. That is definitely not a good practice always and not union 101.

by MiroF 6y ago

hyperdimension 6y ago

> Some unions are also just in the pocket of management. I honestly believe you on this point, but that is just so crazy that I'd be curious as to the turn of events that would turn out to the union selling out its soul so completely. Unless, of course, that was their intended goal. It just seems so antithetical to the theoretical principles of a union.

MiroF 6y ago
I think it's not the union that has sold its soul so much as targeting specific individuals who are important in governing a certain local or something, and getting them to sell out. See, for instance, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/business/gm-fiat-chrysler-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/business/gm-fiat-chrysler... > General Motors has accused Fiat Chrysler of bribing union officials to get a leg up on G.M. in contract negotiations, contending in a lawsuit that its competitor paid for the union’s negotiating team to have a $7,000 dinner shortly after concluding a labor agreement. Fiat Chrysler has called the suit meritless. I think many are interpreting my comment as anti-union, which it was not meant to be. Unions can be coopted by management, but better to have some sort of worker council/representation than none at all.

tdeck 6y ago

To expand a bit, a union is supposed to be democratic - the workers themselves organize to promote their own interests. But many unions that remain these days have become professionalized. They have their own well-paid administration and lobbyists, and their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers. Here is an article I found that goes into this: https://www.labornotes.org/2002/06/corporatization-unions https://www.labornotes.org/2002/06/corporatization-unions

MiroF 6y ago
> their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers. I'm curious how you think this differs from traditional practices, generally i think of signing security clauses + political influence as basic union 101. There've always been professional organizers as long as there've been unions. They're hardly "well-paid" by private standards.
- tdeck 6y ago
  Both styles of union have a long history, but the alternative practice is to rely more heavily on strikes and other workplace actions, and less on pay-to-play politics. It may be "union 101" to sign no-strike clauses but there are unions like the IWW that have always rejected them.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    What you need is a union law similar to germany. In germany, when you apply to a job where a union has created a union employee contract (ie, standardized pay, standardized hours & benefits), then you can choose to use that contract even if you are not part of the union and you are entitled to still do your own contract even if you are in the union. The only time you have to accept certain parts in your contract no choice is if they are mandated by the worker's council, which is voted for democratically by workers from and for a specific company and they can veto anything the company does or demand changes with a 50% share in board votes.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      I don't see how this is different from a US union contract, which is approved by the majority of the local. Generally, the union will not make the dues optional because that is how unions collapse in the US.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    I didn't realize you were referring to no-strike contracts, that's not what a security clause is. That is definitely not a good practice always and not union 101.