7 ms·

Good on them. I think the demonising of unions has been one of the stupidest things to come out of the neo-liberal era. EDIT: Knew I'd get downvoted. Serious

Good on them. I think the demonising of unions has been one of the stupidest things to come out of the neo-liberal era. EDIT: Knew I'd get downvoted. Seriously though, why is it a bad thing for employees to bargain collectively in order to get the best deal? To me it just demonstrates the market working. i.e. people achieving "economies of scale" (to bastardise the term) in negotiations with powerful employers.

nupark2 15y ago
While I agree with the sentiment, unions breed enormous inefficiencies -- modern unions are worthy of scorn. I'm not convinced that there's anything a union does that a co-operative corporation couldn't do better. Instead of battering your head against Management, you can align your interests with Management. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
- quandrum 15y ago
  While I agree with your sentiment that cooperatives would be better, reality for many of these places are that management has no desire or will to cooperate. Sadly, in the modern world, sometimes it seem labor is a throwaway commodity, and one that can increasingly be replaced by capital.
- ericd 15y ago
  Why should management give up the control of a company they founded/own/etc?
  - krakensden 15y ago
    Because they want to share responsibility. It's not a one way street.
    - ericd 15y ago
      The people who found companies tend to be the kind that are not intimidated by responsibility, though.
      - nupark2 15y ago
        A co-operative corporation can allow more people to start businesses that otherwise wouldn't have the resources to do so, without granting an ownership stake to outside investors.
        krakensden 15y ago
        Indeed- think of it as scaling out the co-founder concept.
muhfuhkuh 15y ago
A large contingent (here and in general) are "supply-side", pro-management, laissez faire, no/low/fair/flat tax supporting, anti-socialist types. It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.
- Joakal 15y ago
  I've downvoted him because it's a one-comment opinion post that wasn't constructive to the thread. Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union." Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.
- cheez 15y ago
  It's funny how laissez faire is considered as solely good for producers by you. In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me. I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    >In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
    - schmittz 15y ago
      I'm not sure what the point of your post is as it's unrelated to the comment it's in reply to. But aside from that fact, be careful to avoid confusing price increases due to shortages and price increases due to speculation about perceived current or future shortages.
    - anamax 15y ago
dantheman 15y ago
If it was voluntary no one would have a problem, but unions demand special rights. Also unions poison the relationship, they turn what should be a mutually beneficial exchange into one that is antagonistic. Most people don't have a problem with the concept of a union, but the reality leaves much to be desired. Here's a good example: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...
- bandushrew 15y ago
  Some Unions can demand special rights. A union may poison the relationship. Mike Rowe nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=player_detailpage#t=203s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=playe...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
arohner 15y ago
The market working is a great thing. The issue is when the market doesn't work. There are many laws granting unions more power than they would otherwise have if the market worked. For example, in some states, if 51% of the employees decide to form a union, the other 49% are forced to become members. Then the union can extract union dues from their paycheck, even if they don't want to. Unions also destroy meritocracy, replacing raises based on merit with raises based on seniority. Unions can increase wages far above what would happen if the market worked. At commercial airlines, you'll see some pilots making $200,000, and some making $30,000, for the same job, on the same route, with the same safety. Increasing wages above market prices causes unemployment, because the company is less likely to hire new employees. Without the union, in general you'll see lower wages, but also lower unemployment. What'd I'd like to see is all laws mentioning the word union to be abolished. No laws protecting unions, and no laws preventing them either. If you can form a club, and raise your wages or working conditions, more power to you.
- jcampbell1 15y ago
  I agree with your sentiments, but in the US, there are also many laws that restrict the power of unions, particularly government employee unions. There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power. Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US, and government employees organizing strikes to get more vacation?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power. Ah yes - when's the last three times that said laws were enforced?
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_stri... So far the MTA is still overpaid and the union is still there. I'd have no objection to government employees striking to get more vacation - provided the agency they work for has the right to fire (for cause) and permanently replace them.
ramanujan 15y ago
Because unions don't let the market work. They physically attack "scabs" who would do the job for less without the bad attitude. They force all workers to pay them dues once a site is unionized (something that right-to-work laws are intended to redress). The union bosses like Andy Stern rake in the bucks for contributing negative productivity. And in the mid to long term they cause the demise, migration, or automation of an entire industry. That's why Boeing moved its plant out of Washington State, and one of the reasons Japanese car companies invest so heavily in robotics. Talk about killing the golden goose. From the standpoint of the consumer and employer, who must deal with their strikes and surly attitude, unions are a disaster. From the standpoint of the above average and exceptional workers, they are also a disaster as unions exert peer pressure to stop people from working hard and "showing up" the unproductive workers. In a union workplace, all promotions are based on seniority rather than merit. And unions have a history of racist targeting of "outsiders". You could not think of a culture less compatible with the tech industry, let alone a Silicon Valley startup.

nupark2 15y ago

While I agree with the sentiment, unions breed enormous inefficiencies -- modern unions are worthy of scorn. I'm not convinced that there's anything a union does that a co-operative corporation couldn't do better. Instead of battering your head against Management, you can align your interests with Management. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

quandrum 15y ago
While I agree with your sentiment that cooperatives would be better, reality for many of these places are that management has no desire or will to cooperate. Sadly, in the modern world, sometimes it seem labor is a throwaway commodity, and one that can increasingly be replaced by capital.
ericd 15y ago
Why should management give up the control of a company they founded/own/etc?
- krakensden 15y ago
  Because they want to share responsibility. It's not a one way street.
  - ericd 15y ago
    The people who found companies tend to be the kind that are not intimidated by responsibility, though.
    - nupark2 15y ago
      A co-operative corporation can allow more people to start businesses that otherwise wouldn't have the resources to do so, without granting an ownership stake to outside investors.
      - krakensden 15y ago
        Indeed- think of it as scaling out the co-founder concept.

muhfuhkuh 15y ago

A large contingent (here and in general) are "supply-side", pro-management, laissez faire, no/low/fair/flat tax supporting, anti-socialist types. It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.

Joakal 15y ago
I've downvoted him because it's a one-comment opinion post that wasn't constructive to the thread. Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union." Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.
cheez 15y ago
It's funny how laissez faire is considered as solely good for producers by you. In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me. I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.
- phillmv 15y ago
  >In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
  - schmittz 15y ago
    I'm not sure what the point of your post is as it's unrelated to the comment it's in reply to. But aside from that fact, be careful to avoid confusing price increases due to shortages and price increases due to speculation about perceived current or future shortages.
  - anamax 15y ago

dantheman 15y ago

If it was voluntary no one would have a problem, but unions demand special rights. Also unions poison the relationship, they turn what should be a mutually beneficial exchange into one that is antagonistic. Most people don't have a problem with the concept of a union, but the reality leaves much to be desired. Here's a good example: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...

bandushrew 15y ago
Some Unions can demand special rights. A union may poison the relationship. Mike Rowe nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=player_detailpage#t=203s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=playe...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

arohner 15y ago

The market working is a great thing. The issue is when the market doesn't work. There are many laws granting unions more power than they would otherwise have if the market worked. For example, in some states, if 51% of the employees decide to form a union, the other 49% are forced to become members. Then the union can extract union dues from their paycheck, even if they don't want to. Unions also destroy meritocracy, replacing raises based on merit with raises based on seniority. Unions can increase wages far above what would happen if the market worked. At commercial airlines, you'll see some pilots making $200,000, and some making $30,000, for the same job, on the same route, with the same safety. Increasing wages above market prices causes unemployment, because the company is less likely to hire new employees. Without the union, in general you'll see lower wages, but also lower unemployment. What'd I'd like to see is all laws mentioning the word union to be abolished. No laws protecting unions, and no laws preventing them either. If you can form a club, and raise your wages or working conditions, more power to you.

jcampbell1 15y ago
I agree with your sentiments, but in the US, there are also many laws that restrict the power of unions, particularly government employee unions. There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power. Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US, and government employees organizing strikes to get more vacation?
- anamax 15y ago
  > There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power. Ah yes - when's the last three times that said laws were enforced?
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_stri... So far the MTA is still overpaid and the union is still there. I'd have no objection to government employees striking to get more vacation - provided the agency they work for has the right to fire (for cause) and permanently replace them.

ramanujan 15y ago

Because unions don't let the market work. They physically attack "scabs" who would do the job for less without the bad attitude. They force all workers to pay them dues once a site is unionized (something that right-to-work laws are intended to redress). The union bosses like Andy Stern rake in the bucks for contributing negative productivity. And in the mid to long term they cause the demise, migration, or automation of an entire industry. That's why Boeing moved its plant out of Washington State, and one of the reasons Japanese car companies invest so heavily in robotics. Talk about killing the golden goose. From the standpoint of the consumer and employer, who must deal with their strikes and surly attitude, unions are a disaster. From the standpoint of the above average and exceptional workers, they are also a disaster as unions exert peer pressure to stop people from working hard and "showing up" the unproductive workers. In a union workplace, all promotions are based on seniority rather than merit. And unions have a history of racist targeting of "outsiders". You could not think of a culture less compatible with the tech industry, let alone a Silicon Valley startup.