4 ms·

I asked this in the google union thread, but was too late to the party to get any answers. Copy pasting it here: Everybody here seems to agree that unions have

I asked this in the google union thread, but was too late to the party to get any answers. Copy pasting it here: Everybody here seems to agree that unions have the potential to do good or bad in every thread on it. The next logical step to me is that there needs to be a selection mechanism in place. For companies, the selection mechanism is competition. If someone else does better, the consumer or worker can choose someone else. And we have anti-monopoly laws to make sure that that someone else exists, to foster that competition and choice. Is there such a mechanism for unions? My ideal scenario wouldn't be me on my own as it is today. I'd want a handful of unions to pick from to represent me, not too differently from my choice of medical insurer. Five unions to represent 575,000 amazon warehouse workers would still average 115,000 members each, so it's a huge step forward in collective bargaining. And then people can change unions if one of them ends up how folks are worried about in every union thread. It seems like it would get at all sides of the issue. We'd get collective representation and a safeguard against the potential pitfalls. How could this scenario come about? Could it be something like medical insurance with an open enrollment season? There would need to be something akin to anti-competitive behavior built in, so you couldn't end up with an agreement saying you can only hire from our union. What else would it take?

WitCanStain 6y ago
>Is there such a mechanism for unions? Unions should be democratic. The workers in the union should collectively decide how it is run, and it should have a fairly flat hierarchical structure. So if you feel that your union does not sufficiently represent your interests, you can get rid of the leadership and change the union for the better. As opposed to companies where you essentially have the choice to tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening (without unions, that is).
- Sodman 6y ago
  The problem is that democracy is imperfect, it can be (and is) frequently gamed and manipulated. Many people are worried about the following scenario: - Software engineers unionize - Some "bad" rules get implemented, perhaps passing vote by misleading slogans or over-represented groups etc. Maybe it was a narrow 51% vs 49% vote. - Top talent leaves, over time that 51% in favor of the bad rules becomes a larger and larger majority - Now your option is essentially tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening. So it's the same as before, except now you owe union dues. - "Top talent" starts new company that's more focused on "work" and has fewer rules. - Company grows... - Software engineers unionize... repeat When I say "bad rules" I'm thinking things that are the software equivalent to existing union rules like "Only union members can plug in that HDMI cable" etc etc.
  - stefan_ 6y ago
    Well that's a convoluted mess. Here is the game plan on the other side of the bargaining table: - Conspire with others to not pay top talent market rate and not poach employees - The end.
    - Sodman 6y ago
      This particular scandal involved FANG companies... While obviously bad for employees, I don't think "we don't get paid enough" is a primary complaint amongst the FANG workers currently trying to unionize. Outside of FANG, poaching and competing on salary are common, at least in the startup space.
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        After the lawsuit, within FAANG, they poach and compete on salary. Take a look at levels.fyi and compare to startup salary bands.
  - moate 6y ago
    So we agree that "nothing is perfect". My question is why did this group unionize if nothing has changed for the better (in your words "its the same as before except now you owe union dues")? Wouldn't it be more likely that the group makes some gains, some losses and is better for most of the people in the group overall? That tends to be what happens in real unionization efforts (I'm more than happy to provide case studies).
    - Sodman 6y ago
      I should clarify that I was talking specifically about unionizing as tech workers. Warehouse workers are a totally different situation. My opinion is admittedly strongly influenced by the fact that at most tech companies I've worked for, the conditions have been great, and any strong employee feedback and reasonable demands were usually listened to and acted up by management. The same can obviously not be said for warehouse workers, so unionizing would almost certainly benefit them. I'll agree that there would most likely be some gains and some losses. I'm just not personally convinced the gains will outweigh the losses for software engineers specifically. I think the key difference here between warehouse workers and tech workers is that if non-union talks with management break down, most tech workers can move jobs and keep similar benefits/comp/location without huge effort, the same can't be said of many warehouse workers.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Democracy is great, but why democratically try to arrive at a single choice when you could democratically arrive at multiple choices? It would be great to have a union. If my union had different priorities than mine, it would also be great to have other options too that also benefit from collective bargaining.
bawolff 6y ago
Perhaps a small number of unions can work. I think if you allow arbitrarily many unions you're kind of back where you start because owners can just entice people to join small enough unions that they lack the power. In a sense, the monoply power of a union is a counterbalance to the monopoly of management in a single workplace.
edent 6y ago
This is how it works in the UK. I have a choice of unions in my workplace. Some are targeted more at one job sector than another - but all of them will gladly take my (cheap!) subscription. I get a vote in the union's policies. Employers can't require you to be a member of a specific union - or any union at all. You ccany join at any time - or leave whenever you want. What does it take? Just join a union and get others to do so. That's all union is, people working together.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'm curious how that works with regards to your contract. Do you get to pick a different contract, with different terms, benefits, etc., depending on which union you join, or are contract terms not negotiated directly by your union in the UK?
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    In most UK workplaces with union recognition, the contract is negotiated between the employer and the (recognised) unions, but applies to all employees. Closed shops are illegal, so free-riding on the union is quite straightforward.
  - edent 6y ago
    In my current and previous workplace, the unions negotiate the group contract. For example setting pay bands, group benefits, etc. The union can also represent you during disciplinary proceedings. There's nothing stopping you negotiating more if you want - or can.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Could you give some examples of the differences between your options? I'd like to better understand what you get to choose between.
kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
Why would people want competition on a union? They don't work like corporations - competition weakens them. I think this fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and function of a union.
- moate 6y ago
  So they can pose hypothetical arguments about the corruption of the as-yet unformed union in an effort to undermine support for it. "What if the union is BAD!? We should consider other things before we lock ourselves into a democratic power-structure that allows greater agency for the laboring class against management because reasons!"
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    More like so you can appease the people with those worries. Worried about these issues? Here's a safety valve. One look at any thread about unions and you can see a significant number of people have these worries, so why not give them some choices?
    - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
      Why not let them undermine solidarity because they have all these hypothetical and unfounded worries? I can think of some reasons.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
        How is it solidarity if you exclude their worries? You think it's unfounded. They disagree.
- pingpongchef 6y ago
  I can think of a few reasons competition can be beneficial. 1. Exert downward pressure on union fees 2. Offer alternatives in the case of union corruption 3. Offer alternatives in union priorities/mission Also, I don't follow how competition in the two spaces, firms and unions, is necessarily different in kind. To the degree that competition "weakens" unions, the same should apply to firms.
Veserv 6y ago
No, IANAL, but my reading of the relevant law indicates that such an arrangement is illegal in the US. Unions in the US are legally enshrined as the exclusive representative of all members of a "unit" which has a precise legal definition which is approximately a group of non-management workers with a well-defined role (e.g. line workers in a factory, butchers in a supermarket, teachers in California) [1]. When a union is formed, all members of the unit are represented by the union including individuals who are not members of the union [2]. This also means that once a union is formed representing the unit, all non-official unions of the form you are suggesting are legally superseded by the official union. I believe this to be an accurate reading of the law as, as far as I am aware, there are no competing unions anywhere in the US unlike many countries in Europe which appear to have competing unions, though I am not particularly familiar with European labor markets. [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation... Sec. 9 159 (b) [2] https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation... Sec. 9 159 (a)

WitCanStain 6y ago

>Is there such a mechanism for unions? Unions should be democratic. The workers in the union should collectively decide how it is run, and it should have a fairly flat hierarchical structure. So if you feel that your union does not sufficiently represent your interests, you can get rid of the leadership and change the union for the better. As opposed to companies where you essentially have the choice to tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening (without unions, that is).

Sodman 6y ago
The problem is that democracy is imperfect, it can be (and is) frequently gamed and manipulated. Many people are worried about the following scenario: - Software engineers unionize - Some "bad" rules get implemented, perhaps passing vote by misleading slogans or over-represented groups etc. Maybe it was a narrow 51% vs 49% vote. - Top talent leaves, over time that 51% in favor of the bad rules becomes a larger and larger majority - Now your option is essentially tolerate it or leave if you don't like what's happening. So it's the same as before, except now you owe union dues. - "Top talent" starts new company that's more focused on "work" and has fewer rules. - Company grows... - Software engineers unionize... repeat When I say "bad rules" I'm thinking things that are the software equivalent to existing union rules like "Only union members can plug in that HDMI cable" etc etc.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  Well that's a convoluted mess. Here is the game plan on the other side of the bargaining table: - Conspire with others to not pay top talent market rate and not poach employees - The end.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    This particular scandal involved FANG companies... While obviously bad for employees, I don't think "we don't get paid enough" is a primary complaint amongst the FANG workers currently trying to unionize. Outside of FANG, poaching and competing on salary are common, at least in the startup space.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      After the lawsuit, within FAANG, they poach and compete on salary. Take a look at levels.fyi and compare to startup salary bands.
- moate 6y ago
  So we agree that "nothing is perfect". My question is why did this group unionize if nothing has changed for the better (in your words "its the same as before except now you owe union dues")? Wouldn't it be more likely that the group makes some gains, some losses and is better for most of the people in the group overall? That tends to be what happens in real unionization efforts (I'm more than happy to provide case studies).
  - Sodman 6y ago
    I should clarify that I was talking specifically about unionizing as tech workers. Warehouse workers are a totally different situation. My opinion is admittedly strongly influenced by the fact that at most tech companies I've worked for, the conditions have been great, and any strong employee feedback and reasonable demands were usually listened to and acted up by management. The same can obviously not be said for warehouse workers, so unionizing would almost certainly benefit them. I'll agree that there would most likely be some gains and some losses. I'm just not personally convinced the gains will outweigh the losses for software engineers specifically. I think the key difference here between warehouse workers and tech workers is that if non-union talks with management break down, most tech workers can move jobs and keep similar benefits/comp/location without huge effort, the same can't be said of many warehouse workers.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Democracy is great, but why democratically try to arrive at a single choice when you could democratically arrive at multiple choices? It would be great to have a union. If my union had different priorities than mine, it would also be great to have other options too that also benefit from collective bargaining.

bawolff 6y ago

Perhaps a small number of unions can work. I think if you allow arbitrarily many unions you're kind of back where you start because owners can just entice people to join small enough unions that they lack the power. In a sense, the monoply power of a union is a counterbalance to the monopoly of management in a single workplace.

edent 6y ago

This is how it works in the UK. I have a choice of unions in my workplace. Some are targeted more at one job sector than another - but all of them will gladly take my (cheap!) subscription. I get a vote in the union's policies. Employers can't require you to be a member of a specific union - or any union at all. You ccany join at any time - or leave whenever you want. What does it take? Just join a union and get others to do so. That's all union is, people working together.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm curious how that works with regards to your contract. Do you get to pick a different contract, with different terms, benefits, etc., depending on which union you join, or are contract terms not negotiated directly by your union in the UK?
- pmyteh 6y ago
  In most UK workplaces with union recognition, the contract is negotiated between the employer and the (recognised) unions, but applies to all employees. Closed shops are illegal, so free-riding on the union is quite straightforward.
- edent 6y ago
  In my current and previous workplace, the unions negotiate the group contract. For example setting pay bands, group benefits, etc. The union can also represent you during disciplinary proceedings. There's nothing stopping you negotiating more if you want - or can.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Could you give some examples of the differences between your options? I'd like to better understand what you get to choose between.

kieselguhr_kid 6y ago

Why would people want competition on a union? They don't work like corporations - competition weakens them. I think this fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and function of a union.

moate 6y ago
So they can pose hypothetical arguments about the corruption of the as-yet unformed union in an effort to undermine support for it. "What if the union is BAD!? We should consider other things before we lock ourselves into a democratic power-structure that allows greater agency for the laboring class against management because reasons!"
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  More like so you can appease the people with those worries. Worried about these issues? Here's a safety valve. One look at any thread about unions and you can see a significant number of people have these worries, so why not give them some choices?
  - kieselguhr_kid 6y ago
    Why not let them undermine solidarity because they have all these hypothetical and unfounded worries? I can think of some reasons.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
      How is it solidarity if you exclude their worries? You think it's unfounded. They disagree.
pingpongchef 6y ago
I can think of a few reasons competition can be beneficial. 1. Exert downward pressure on union fees 2. Offer alternatives in the case of union corruption 3. Offer alternatives in union priorities/mission Also, I don't follow how competition in the two spaces, firms and unions, is necessarily different in kind. To the degree that competition "weakens" unions, the same should apply to firms.

Veserv 6y ago

No, IANAL, but my reading of the relevant law indicates that such an arrangement is illegal in the US. Unions in the US are legally enshrined as the exclusive representative of all members of a "unit" which has a precise legal definition which is approximately a group of non-management workers with a well-defined role (e.g. line workers in a factory, butchers in a supermarket, teachers in California) [1]. When a union is formed, all members of the unit are represented by the union including individuals who are not members of the union [2]. This also means that once a union is formed representing the unit, all non-official unions of the form you are suggesting are legally superseded by the official union. I believe this to be an accurate reading of the law as, as far as I am aware, there are no competing unions anywhere in the US unlike many countries in Europe which appear to have competing unions, though I am not particularly familiar with European labor markets. [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation... Sec. 9 159 (b) [2] https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation... Sec. 9 159 (a)