6 ms·

Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any

Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms?

neaden 6y ago
Don't force your workers to work in dangerous conditions with low pay and no voice in their work place, and maybe they wouldn't want to form a union.
- JackFr 6y ago
  What if I don't do any of those things? What if I run the most worker-centric paradise, with employee empowerment, great wages, benefits and conditions? And what if the national organization of an umbrella labor organization considers my non-union workforce as a threat to both their budget and their political power? And what if they provide materials and advisors promoting unionization, despite the fact that they are acting in the interest of the union organization itself, and not the workers they hope to represent?
  - neaden 6y ago
    Sure, that could happen. Are you trying to argue that an employer should have a 100% right to have a union-free workplace?
  - kwhitefoot 6y ago
    If you are such a wonderful, caring employer what difference would it make if your employees were unionised? I think that part of the problem here is that the history of unions and union busting in the US appears to be one of corruption on both sides; but this is not a necessary or inevitable feature of unionisation.
  - hollandheese 6y ago
    If you “ran” the most worker-centric paradise, you’d be the elected CEO of a co-op where the workers had democratic control of the means of production. In such a place, there’d of course be no need for a union because the workers would have the say in what happens already. Now your strawman benevolent dictatorship could never exist since you would still be denying workers control over their workplace. Thus they may form a union to fight for that control.
wozer 6y ago
In most Western countries, workers have a right to form unions. So yes, companies have to accept it.
- calvinmorrison 6y ago
  Do companies have a right to circulate anti-union material, to have anti-union speakers come to work, etc?
  - eplanit 6y ago
    Yes, they do.
  - faceplanted 6y ago
    Depends on the country but _tentatively_ yes, America has a infamously anti-union, anti-worker history though so there's significantly more holdover of it actually happening, what most other countries don't have is services like the Pinkertons, previously a literally rifle-armed military/police force for the purposes of seeking out and often murdering union leaders and breaking up strikes by force. What I was taught was that generally most older countries already had established police forces that wouldn't allow groups like the Pinkertons to exist by the time the union movement came along where America didn't and instead their police actually came _from_ groups like the Pinkertons. But I'd take that with a grain of salt given that it was second hand summarized information even when I first got it.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      It is basically correct that the US police descend from a mixture of slave patrol remnants and strikebusters near the late 19th / beginning of the 20th century (though sometimes in opposition to them, the initial state police ranks were still largely drawn from private police, racist "town watches", and militia forces). England and the rest of the Anglosphere adopted what are often called "Peelian principles," focused on policing by community consent, 50+ years earlier than that.
ben_w 6y ago
Carrots rather than sticks
Conlectus 6y ago
> What tactics are ok for a company to combat unions? None. This is a legally protected right.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > None. This isn't a true statement. Companies are allowed to argue against unionisation. In the US isn't it even a constitutionally protected right to do so?
  - qsort 6y ago
    There's a huge difference between "argue against" and "actively try to sabotage". Here (Italy) unionization is a constitutionally protected right. My employer can try to persuade me not to join one, but is absolutely not allowed to retaliate against me if I do, discriminate basing on union membership, etc.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > My employer can try to persuade me not to join one Yes, and isn't this therefore an example of 'tactics that are ok for a company to combat unions'?
CamTin 6y ago
> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? They don't have a right to combat them at all. Union organizing is literally a human right. Of course ownership doesn't want them -- the feelings of ownership are (supposed to be) irrelevant.
- dcgudeman 6y ago
  It really amazes me what some people think qualifies for a “human right”. If you are paying someone and they are doing something you told them not to do isn’t it your “human right” to stop paying them? Where do you draw the line with what a “human right” is?
  - PhasmaFelis 6y ago
    > If you are paying someone and they are doing something you told them not to do isn’t it your “human right” to stop paying them? Obviously not. Real-world cases in point: * Firing people for being queer * Firing people for objecting to sexual harassment * Firing people for going to the bathroom
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
      Just to add, most of the bathroom related ones are other employees complaining, not management. Management has to respond to that. This is because US culture insists on separate gender bathrooms.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        In the context of Amazon, though, performance quotas are inhumane, warehouses are huge, bathrooms are sparse, so employees aren't able to use the bathroom without taking performance demerits. So you get people passing out due to dehydration because they don't want to need the bathroom.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Think about it this way: both sides have the right to freely negotiate a contract, and then decide whether or not to enter into it. The CEO can't prevent the workers from talking to each other and figuring out what they think a fair contract would be, and the workers can't prevent the CEO from talking to other CEOs for the same reason. The specific human right is usually referred to as "freedom of association". You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
burkaman 6y ago
Think about what you're asking. Replace the word union with "employees talking to each other and negotiating their contracts".
lovegoblin 6y ago
> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Won't somebody please think of the companies? :'(
Jochim 6y ago
> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? In the US they could improve working conditions to the point that employees are happy with the status quo. Unionisation efforts are typically driven by employees who are stressed by unhealthy/unsafe working environments, employee mistreatment, or poor pay. We see the opposite of this in the tech sector, where decent pay, safe environments and plenty of benefits leads to a rather union hostile attitude. > Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms? If we accept that unions act to address the power imbalance between employees and employers and unionisation is mainly driven by employers exploiting that power imbalance then I think it's both good for society and in line with the spirit of the laws that exist in many places that make various forms of union busting illegal.
nkrisc 6y ago
They could do whatever they're doing with their tech workers. Around these parts any talk of unionizing developers is usually meet with skepticism or derision. So whatever big tech is doing is keeping most of their tech workers happy and unwilling to unionize. They could do the same for their warehouse employees, but that would mean paying them very well and giving good benefits.
- pydry 6y ago
  It's not really feasible to pay their box packers $120k / year.
  - SauciestGNU 6y ago
    But it could be feasible to pay them more than a poverty wage. Something where working full-time would reasonably cover housing and food costs (and ideally healthcare as well) without needing government assistance.
  - ska 6y ago
    Why would they have to? Tech workers at FAANG are on average paid probably in the 2x-3x range of average in their industry. I suspect if amazon paid 2x average box packer wages and gave good breaks/benefits, unions wouldn't have much traction there, either. The parallel isn't crazy (the economics might be, I haven't analyzed)
  - Glanford 6y ago
    Nobody is asking that warehouse workers or store clerks be paid ridiculous amounts like $120k/yr, a fair liveable wage will do, failing that a lot of the problems would be resolved if such companies scaled back whatever policies they have that lead to news stories like Amazon workers peeing in bottles because they can't take toilet breaks, but as neither of these things happen you get exploited workers who naturally want to unionise. It's also not that feasible to pay developers $120k/yr as the rest of the world has found out, America manages it for a number of reasons and because of this you likely won't see developers unionise any time soon even if you guys do have some very questionable contracts.
  - 6y ago
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Do the things that don't make employees want to form a union...such as paying and not overworking them.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
> work with any union that forms Yes, because why the fuck would you side with the party that has power (the employer) over the side that usually doesn't (the employee)?

Where do we draw the line? What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms?

neaden 6y ago

Don't force your workers to work in dangerous conditions with low pay and no voice in their work place, and maybe they wouldn't want to form a union.

JackFr 6y ago
What if I don't do any of those things? What if I run the most worker-centric paradise, with employee empowerment, great wages, benefits and conditions? And what if the national organization of an umbrella labor organization considers my non-union workforce as a threat to both their budget and their political power? And what if they provide materials and advisors promoting unionization, despite the fact that they are acting in the interest of the union organization itself, and not the workers they hope to represent?
- neaden 6y ago
  Sure, that could happen. Are you trying to argue that an employer should have a 100% right to have a union-free workplace?
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  If you are such a wonderful, caring employer what difference would it make if your employees were unionised? I think that part of the problem here is that the history of unions and union busting in the US appears to be one of corruption on both sides; but this is not a necessary or inevitable feature of unionisation.
- hollandheese 6y ago
  If you “ran” the most worker-centric paradise, you’d be the elected CEO of a co-op where the workers had democratic control of the means of production. In such a place, there’d of course be no need for a union because the workers would have the say in what happens already. Now your strawman benevolent dictatorship could never exist since you would still be denying workers control over their workplace. Thus they may form a union to fight for that control.

wozer 6y ago

In most Western countries, workers have a right to form unions. So yes, companies have to accept it.

calvinmorrison 6y ago
Do companies have a right to circulate anti-union material, to have anti-union speakers come to work, etc?
- eplanit 6y ago
  Yes, they do.
- faceplanted 6y ago
  Depends on the country but _tentatively_ yes, America has a infamously anti-union, anti-worker history though so there's significantly more holdover of it actually happening, what most other countries don't have is services like the Pinkertons, previously a literally rifle-armed military/police force for the purposes of seeking out and often murdering union leaders and breaking up strikes by force. What I was taught was that generally most older countries already had established police forces that wouldn't allow groups like the Pinkertons to exist by the time the union movement came along where America didn't and instead their police actually came _from_ groups like the Pinkertons. But I'd take that with a grain of salt given that it was second hand summarized information even when I first got it.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    It is basically correct that the US police descend from a mixture of slave patrol remnants and strikebusters near the late 19th / beginning of the 20th century (though sometimes in opposition to them, the initial state police ranks were still largely drawn from private police, racist "town watches", and militia forces). England and the rest of the Anglosphere adopted what are often called "Peelian principles," focused on policing by community consent, 50+ years earlier than that.

ben_w 6y ago

Carrots rather than sticks

Conlectus 6y ago

> What tactics are ok for a company to combat unions? None. This is a legally protected right.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> None. This isn't a true statement. Companies are allowed to argue against unionisation. In the US isn't it even a constitutionally protected right to do so?
- qsort 6y ago
  There's a huge difference between "argue against" and "actively try to sabotage". Here (Italy) unionization is a constitutionally protected right. My employer can try to persuade me not to join one, but is absolutely not allowed to retaliate against me if I do, discriminate basing on union membership, etc.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > My employer can try to persuade me not to join one Yes, and isn't this therefore an example of 'tactics that are ok for a company to combat unions'?

CamTin 6y ago

> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? They don't have a right to combat them at all. Union organizing is literally a human right. Of course ownership doesn't want them -- the feelings of ownership are (supposed to be) irrelevant.

dcgudeman 6y ago
It really amazes me what some people think qualifies for a “human right”. If you are paying someone and they are doing something you told them not to do isn’t it your “human right” to stop paying them? Where do you draw the line with what a “human right” is?
- PhasmaFelis 6y ago
  > If you are paying someone and they are doing something you told them not to do isn’t it your “human right” to stop paying them? Obviously not. Real-world cases in point: * Firing people for being queer * Firing people for objecting to sexual harassment * Firing people for going to the bathroom
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    Just to add, most of the bathroom related ones are other employees complaining, not management. Management has to respond to that. This is because US culture insists on separate gender bathrooms.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      In the context of Amazon, though, performance quotas are inhumane, warehouses are huge, bathrooms are sparse, so employees aren't able to use the bathroom without taking performance demerits. So you get people passing out due to dehydration because they don't want to need the bathroom.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Think about it this way: both sides have the right to freely negotiate a contract, and then decide whether or not to enter into it. The CEO can't prevent the workers from talking to each other and figuring out what they think a fair contract would be, and the workers can't prevent the CEO from talking to other CEOs for the same reason. The specific human right is usually referred to as "freedom of association". You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

burkaman 6y ago

Think about what you're asking. Replace the word union with "employees talking to each other and negotiating their contracts".

lovegoblin 6y ago

> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? Won't somebody please think of the companies? :'(

Jochim 6y ago

> What tactics are ok for a company to use to combat unions if it doesn't want them? In the US they could improve working conditions to the point that employees are happy with the status quo. Unionisation efforts are typically driven by employees who are stressed by unhealthy/unsafe working environments, employee mistreatment, or poor pay. We see the opposite of this in the tech sector, where decent pay, safe environments and plenty of benefits leads to a rather union hostile attitude. > Or should companies just accept and work with any union that forms? If we accept that unions act to address the power imbalance between employees and employers and unionisation is mainly driven by employers exploiting that power imbalance then I think it's both good for society and in line with the spirit of the laws that exist in many places that make various forms of union busting illegal.

nkrisc 6y ago

They could do whatever they're doing with their tech workers. Around these parts any talk of unionizing developers is usually meet with skepticism or derision. So whatever big tech is doing is keeping most of their tech workers happy and unwilling to unionize. They could do the same for their warehouse employees, but that would mean paying them very well and giving good benefits.

pydry 6y ago
It's not really feasible to pay their box packers $120k / year.
- SauciestGNU 6y ago
  But it could be feasible to pay them more than a poverty wage. Something where working full-time would reasonably cover housing and food costs (and ideally healthcare as well) without needing government assistance.
- ska 6y ago
  Why would they have to? Tech workers at FAANG are on average paid probably in the 2x-3x range of average in their industry. I suspect if amazon paid 2x average box packer wages and gave good breaks/benefits, unions wouldn't have much traction there, either. The parallel isn't crazy (the economics might be, I haven't analyzed)
- Glanford 6y ago
  Nobody is asking that warehouse workers or store clerks be paid ridiculous amounts like $120k/yr, a fair liveable wage will do, failing that a lot of the problems would be resolved if such companies scaled back whatever policies they have that lead to news stories like Amazon workers peeing in bottles because they can't take toilet breaks, but as neither of these things happen you get exploited workers who naturally want to unionise. It's also not that feasible to pay developers $120k/yr as the rest of the world has found out, America manages it for a number of reasons and because of this you likely won't see developers unionise any time soon even if you guys do have some very questionable contracts.
- 6y ago

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Do the things that don't make employees want to form a union...such as paying and not overworking them.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

> work with any union that forms Yes, because why the fuck would you side with the party that has power (the employer) over the side that usually doesn't (the employee)?