8 ms·

> Once a union has been certified or recognized, the employer is required to bargain over your terms and conditions of employment with your union representative

by jdasdf 6y ago

> Once a union has been certified or recognized, the employer is required to bargain over your terms and conditions of employment with your union representative. Oh. So once again bad laws cause the whole problem...

cratermoon 6y ago
Those same "bad laws" are why you have a 5-day work week, your retirement plan, overtime (if you are hourly), safe working conditions, sick leave. The list goes on. If you think you'd like to go back before the time when unions didn't exist, let me direct you to the work of photographer Lewis Hine
- nickpp 6y ago
  We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    > competition between employees Ah yes, the invocation of the Free Market Fairy https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    > Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      Most fields where the added value is equivalent to that of a (basically) robot and where the labor pool is more than "any able body" and thus the supply side is ridiculously unlimited. Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.
  - EliRivers 6y ago
    today's situation favours the employee in most fields I guess employees are choosing to let rich people take all the wealth they generate, then. How very generous of employees. I guess what I'm basically saying is that the evidence indicates that what you just said is bullshit.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      I guess am not aware of any evidence of "rich people take all the wealth". I know there are organisational structures in which all kinds of people cooperate to create wealth which is then distributed along to clearly agreed and understood rules to funders, investors and workers. They are called companies and all participants are adult, informed and consenting.
      - EliRivers 6y ago
        Look it up. Over the last fifty years in the US, productivity gains have gone to the rich. Employee wages have stagnated; the extra wealth they create goes to the rich. This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. It's pretty widely known. Your assertion that employees have the power would suggest that employees are choosing to give these gains to the rich. That's just plain nonsense. All those people making minimum wage at Walmart; do they really look to you like they're in the driving seat? Not aware of any evidence? You don't have to agree with Piketti to be aware of him; to be unaware of his work is to be wilfully ignorant. Best selling economist of the last decade? Enormously widely sold? Discussed in almost every economic forum? If you are genuinely unaware of any of the work on the subject (even those who vehemently disagree are still aware of it), then you are phenomenally ignorant in the field and should probably just not say anything.
        nickpp 6y ago
        No, it didn't go to "the rich". The generated wealth went to funders, investors and employees with stocks. That made some of them rich. But today anybody can own stock in companies so I guess everybody had the opportunity to enjoy those gains.
  - andyjohnson0 6y ago
    > We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both.
      - cratermoon 6y ago
        The term "low-skilled" was just invented by economists to justify low wages. I challenge you to spend a day doing something you consider low-skilled next to someone who has spent years in the job and at the end of the day compare your results. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y
      - andyjohnson0 6y ago
        > Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both. I didn't say any of that. I was commenting on the assertion that "today's situation favours the employee in most fields". Which is demonstrably untrue for many people. And I was also implicitly asserting that society should create the conditions for all workers to be treated decently, whether or not they receive a high salary.
        nickpp 6y ago
        Creating those decent conditions costs money, implying in effect a higher reward, even if not in salary form.
- Rule35 6y ago
  Unions have done their job. They were needed when Pinkertons beat up people trying to open new stores in a company town, etc. Ironically, flagging a post without bad content is just the sort of passive aggressive crap you have to put up with in a union.
  - basilgohar 6y ago
    Laws have done their job. They were needed when people were hunter-gatherers and needed to settle in cities and learn how to live peacefully now, etc.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    > They were needed when Pinkertons beat up people trying to open new stores in a company town, etc. BTW, Amazon is still using Pinkertons to repress unionization attempts[0]. Things haven't changed that much after all. - [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-spies-union-strike-spain-ccoo-legal-action-2020-12?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-spie...
    - Rule35 6y ago
      So? They used to break your legs. Now they just write stuff in a little booklet. Things have changed a lot.
      - pietrovismara 6y ago
        The struggle is still the same. Things have just gotten more politically correct, because now every employee could record your Pinkertons beating up people and share it with the whole world. Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that.
        Rule35 6y ago
        > Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that. We did not. Unless you are seventy. The changing laws of our country that make unions less useful have also gotten rid of private armies. > The struggle is still the same. Wow, no. Not at all. Not having people willing or able to hurt you kinda makes all the difference.

by jdasdf 6y ago

cratermoon 6y ago

Those same "bad laws" are why you have a 5-day work week, your retirement plan, overtime (if you are hourly), safe working conditions, sick leave. The list goes on. If you think you'd like to go back before the time when unions didn't exist, let me direct you to the work of photographer Lewis Hine

nickpp 6y ago
We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.
- cratermoon 6y ago
  > competition between employees Ah yes, the invocation of the Free Market Fairy https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  > Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Most fields where the added value is equivalent to that of a (basically) robot and where the labor pool is more than "any able body" and thus the supply side is ridiculously unlimited. Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.
- EliRivers 6y ago
  today's situation favours the employee in most fields I guess employees are choosing to let rich people take all the wealth they generate, then. How very generous of employees. I guess what I'm basically saying is that the evidence indicates that what you just said is bullshit.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    I guess am not aware of any evidence of "rich people take all the wealth". I know there are organisational structures in which all kinds of people cooperate to create wealth which is then distributed along to clearly agreed and understood rules to funders, investors and workers. They are called companies and all participants are adult, informed and consenting.
    - EliRivers 6y ago
      Look it up. Over the last fifty years in the US, productivity gains have gone to the rich. Employee wages have stagnated; the extra wealth they create goes to the rich. This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. It's pretty widely known. Your assertion that employees have the power would suggest that employees are choosing to give these gains to the rich. That's just plain nonsense. All those people making minimum wage at Walmart; do they really look to you like they're in the driving seat? Not aware of any evidence? You don't have to agree with Piketti to be aware of him; to be unaware of his work is to be wilfully ignorant. Best selling economist of the last decade? Enormously widely sold? Discussed in almost every economic forum? If you are genuinely unaware of any of the work on the subject (even those who vehemently disagree are still aware of it), then you are phenomenally ignorant in the field and should probably just not say anything.
      - nickpp 6y ago
        No, it didn't go to "the rich". The generated wealth went to funders, investors and employees with stocks. That made some of them rich. But today anybody can own stock in companies so I guess everybody had the opportunity to enjoy those gains.
- andyjohnson0 6y ago
  > We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields. Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both.
    - cratermoon 6y ago
      The term "low-skilled" was just invented by economists to justify low wages. I challenge you to spend a day doing something you consider low-skilled next to someone who has spent years in the job and at the end of the day compare your results. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y
    - andyjohnson0 6y ago
      > Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both. I didn't say any of that. I was commenting on the assertion that "today's situation favours the employee in most fields". Which is demonstrably untrue for many people. And I was also implicitly asserting that society should create the conditions for all workers to be treated decently, whether or not they receive a high salary.
      - nickpp 6y ago
        Creating those decent conditions costs money, implying in effect a higher reward, even if not in salary form.
Rule35 6y ago
Unions have done their job. They were needed when Pinkertons beat up people trying to open new stores in a company town, etc. Ironically, flagging a post without bad content is just the sort of passive aggressive crap you have to put up with in a union.
- basilgohar 6y ago
  Laws have done their job. They were needed when people were hunter-gatherers and needed to settle in cities and learn how to live peacefully now, etc.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  > They were needed when Pinkertons beat up people trying to open new stores in a company town, etc. BTW, Amazon is still using Pinkertons to repress unionization attempts[0]. Things haven't changed that much after all. - [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-spies-union-strike-spain-ccoo-legal-action-2020-12?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-spie...
  - Rule35 6y ago
    So? They used to break your legs. Now they just write stuff in a little booklet. Things have changed a lot.
    - pietrovismara 6y ago
      The struggle is still the same. Things have just gotten more politically correct, because now every employee could record your Pinkertons beating up people and share it with the whole world. Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        > Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that. We did not. Unless you are seventy. The changing laws of our country that make unions less useful have also gotten rid of private armies. > The struggle is still the same. Wow, no. Not at all. Not having people willing or able to hurt you kinda makes all the difference.