5 ms·

Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss - because there is an overlap of interests. Saying the boss is not interested is totally no

Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss - because there is an overlap of interests. Saying the boss is not interested is totally not true. When I went to school we ALL knew (even the kids) that one teacher simply basically did not teach. It didn't matter they were totally protected. Principle would have fired them in a minute. Old white dude, massive seniority, union officer I think so he also may have gotten time off teaching for that ? Anyways, the rest of the teachers were amazing, but imagine you are a female minority teacher having to deal with extra class sizes because of this dufus. At least when I was growing up the union officers was an old boys club situation.

pydry 6y ago
>Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss I can recall so many counter examples. Relatives, drinking buddies, snitches, people whom the boss was somewhat in awe of because they saw them as "rock stars", people for whom firing would have reflected badly on the boss, people who were good at pulling the wool over his eyes. Generally the people I've seen fired were for insubordination not laziness - often they worked much harder than other workers.
- random5634 6y ago
  Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. If you think Amazon is hiring based on this - fantastic, they are doomed by only hiring lazy drinking buddies and relatives. Reality? Amazon has probably a very driven workforce and working culture. But maybe you are right it's all just a bunch of drinking buddies.
  - KittenInABox 6y ago
    > Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. No different than if a union doesn't kick out shitty union members no? The same still holds true. Anything a bad union does, a bad boss can do, at least with a union you have a vote.
    - random5634 6y ago
      This has already happened in America - many union based orgs become totally noncompetitive and had bankruptcies and layoffs rather than blowing away the "drinking buddies" businesses. In the private sector unions now only have a small fraction of jobs (I think < 10% now?) Unions work much better in public sector where they can't go out of business. Police unions, prison guard unions, teacher unions etc. I wouldn't say service or accountability is that great in these systems.
      - pydry 6y ago
        Union based orgs typically went under because competitor labor was offshored or just cheaper (e.g. new airlines hiring pilots for $16k/year). When you're competing with a Mexican, a Bangladeshi or a slave in Thailand all working for a pittance it doesn't necessarily matter how hard you work. Unemployment or poverty wages are your two choices. Police unions and prison worker unions are more effective because they tend to aid rather than threaten capital. Teachers unions by contrast are not, which is why most governors declare outright war on them.
  - bumby 6y ago
    >Fantastic - then the business goes under. Curious if this means you are against public sector unions? I.e., where the organization can’t “go under” or, if it does, it may represent a real public risk
    - random5634 6y ago
      I've not really seen good support for public sector unions are bad (though clearly a fair number have negotiated sweetheart deals). Places like California do relatively well even with high rates of public sector unionization. In terms of workers, the govt can't go "out of business" so seems pretty rational to join a union in that context? The other issue is politicans are total idiots. I've done enough work in govt to know that the folks making policy NEVER EVER ask the folks in charge of delivering on something what small changes would make things 100x more efficient, fraud resistant and more. For example, PPP loans. Everyone in govt knows that employers make payroll tax payments every other week, file quarterly reports and annual W-2's and W-3's for staff. So if you are going to do a paycheck protection program - two options. One, use the data YOU ALREADY HAVE ON FILE to auto generate loans (2.5 months of payroll) using a simple signup form with very little risk of fraud - funds can only go into the same payroll accounts deposits made from etc. Instead, we got a totally stupid system where massive fees were paid to folks who had no clue to supposedly screen folks using easily alterable documents. The fraud if they care to look is going to be high AND the pain was extreme for folks applying. All of which could have been avoided. My point - a unionized workforce would not have messed this up as badly as a bunch of whacko political appointees with no clue, so I'm not necessarily against public sector unions if it helps with retention.
      - bumby 6y ago
        I go back and forth on my opinion of public unions but since you said you weren’t aware of the argument of why some feel they aren’t favorable, I’ll play devils advocate. Typically, in private union shops there is a check and balance between union demands and the viability of a business. Meaning, if a union gets too greedy they create a threat to their own existence by potentially driving their employer out of business. I witnessed this in the automotive sector when unions had to renegotiate their rates in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Workers brought in afterwards were often making less than half of what they would have made if brought in before renegotiation. I don’t think that same check exists (or is at the very least slower and weakened) in the public sector because the govt is a monopoly and can often raise taxes. Sure citizens can try to elect politicians that buffer this but at best it’s a process that takes years to enact and at worst is ineffectual. Because they have a captive “customer” base and a “company” that can’t go out of business, it provides a theoretical avenue for extortion. Besides all of that, civil servants are intended to serve the populace (hence the term servant) and not be strictly motivated by personal gain; they generally take an oath, meaning they are expected to answer to a higher calling. (I also have lots of reasons to believe public unions are beneficial but like I said, just wanted to potentially give a side you weren’t familiar with) Regarding PPP, there’s been some good links in this thread that show public sector unions are quite strong despite the dwindling private sector unions. Meaning government policies are not enacted devoid of union influence. High level policies will almost always be driven by political appointees so I have doubts that an even more unionized public sector would impact on these policies
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. This actually does not happen. A business can be profitable while keeping quite a lot of dysfunction inside.

pydry 6y ago

>Generally a super lazy worker does eventually get fired by the boss I can recall so many counter examples. Relatives, drinking buddies, snitches, people whom the boss was somewhat in awe of because they saw them as "rock stars", people for whom firing would have reflected badly on the boss, people who were good at pulling the wool over his eyes. Generally the people I've seen fired were for insubordination not laziness - often they worked much harder than other workers.

random5634 6y ago
Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. If you think Amazon is hiring based on this - fantastic, they are doomed by only hiring lazy drinking buddies and relatives. Reality? Amazon has probably a very driven workforce and working culture. But maybe you are right it's all just a bunch of drinking buddies.
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  > Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. No different than if a union doesn't kick out shitty union members no? The same still holds true. Anything a bad union does, a bad boss can do, at least with a union you have a vote.
  - random5634 6y ago
    This has already happened in America - many union based orgs become totally noncompetitive and had bankruptcies and layoffs rather than blowing away the "drinking buddies" businesses. In the private sector unions now only have a small fraction of jobs (I think < 10% now?) Unions work much better in public sector where they can't go out of business. Police unions, prison guard unions, teacher unions etc. I wouldn't say service or accountability is that great in these systems.
    - pydry 6y ago
      Union based orgs typically went under because competitor labor was offshored or just cheaper (e.g. new airlines hiring pilots for $16k/year). When you're competing with a Mexican, a Bangladeshi or a slave in Thailand all working for a pittance it doesn't necessarily matter how hard you work. Unemployment or poverty wages are your two choices. Police unions and prison worker unions are more effective because they tend to aid rather than threaten capital. Teachers unions by contrast are not, which is why most governors declare outright war on them.
- bumby 6y ago
  >Fantastic - then the business goes under. Curious if this means you are against public sector unions? I.e., where the organization can’t “go under” or, if it does, it may represent a real public risk
  - random5634 6y ago
    I've not really seen good support for public sector unions are bad (though clearly a fair number have negotiated sweetheart deals). Places like California do relatively well even with high rates of public sector unionization. In terms of workers, the govt can't go "out of business" so seems pretty rational to join a union in that context? The other issue is politicans are total idiots. I've done enough work in govt to know that the folks making policy NEVER EVER ask the folks in charge of delivering on something what small changes would make things 100x more efficient, fraud resistant and more. For example, PPP loans. Everyone in govt knows that employers make payroll tax payments every other week, file quarterly reports and annual W-2's and W-3's for staff. So if you are going to do a paycheck protection program - two options. One, use the data YOU ALREADY HAVE ON FILE to auto generate loans (2.5 months of payroll) using a simple signup form with very little risk of fraud - funds can only go into the same payroll accounts deposits made from etc. Instead, we got a totally stupid system where massive fees were paid to folks who had no clue to supposedly screen folks using easily alterable documents. The fraud if they care to look is going to be high AND the pain was extreme for folks applying. All of which could have been avoided. My point - a unionized workforce would not have messed this up as badly as a bunch of whacko political appointees with no clue, so I'm not necessarily against public sector unions if it helps with retention.
    - bumby 6y ago
      I go back and forth on my opinion of public unions but since you said you weren’t aware of the argument of why some feel they aren’t favorable, I’ll play devils advocate. Typically, in private union shops there is a check and balance between union demands and the viability of a business. Meaning, if a union gets too greedy they create a threat to their own existence by potentially driving their employer out of business. I witnessed this in the automotive sector when unions had to renegotiate their rates in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Workers brought in afterwards were often making less than half of what they would have made if brought in before renegotiation. I don’t think that same check exists (or is at the very least slower and weakened) in the public sector because the govt is a monopoly and can often raise taxes. Sure citizens can try to elect politicians that buffer this but at best it’s a process that takes years to enact and at worst is ineffectual. Because they have a captive “customer” base and a “company” that can’t go out of business, it provides a theoretical avenue for extortion. Besides all of that, civil servants are intended to serve the populace (hence the term servant) and not be strictly motivated by personal gain; they generally take an oath, meaning they are expected to answer to a higher calling. (I also have lots of reasons to believe public unions are beneficial but like I said, just wanted to potentially give a side you weren’t familiar with) Regarding PPP, there’s been some good links in this thread that show public sector unions are quite strong despite the dwindling private sector unions. Meaning government policies are not enacted devoid of union influence. High level policies will almost always be driven by political appointees so I have doubts that an even more unionized public sector would impact on these policies
- watwut 6y ago
  > Fantastic - then the business goes under. I've seen that happen to, and there is a natural result - good workers leave and the business dies. This actually does not happen. A business can be profitable while keeping quite a lot of dysfunction inside.