6 ms·

I'm taking it to mean union employees wouldn't get new grants. Which makes sense to me - I have a hard time squaring how you can be in a union with an adversari

by npad 6y ago

I'm taking it to mean union employees wouldn't get new grants. Which makes sense to me - I have a hard time squaring how you can be in a union with an adversarial relationship to management, whilst at the same time being an owner of the company. It's one or the other.

mullingitover 6y ago
Why are these things at odds? It seems like the ideal outcome for the union would be to have a significant ownership stake in the company and share in its success, rather than have an adversarial relationship and drag down profits. Making the company uncompetitive in the market is bad for the union in the long run.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  Representatives of the union see the world differently. They don't see collaboration on the same goal, they see rich management exploiting employees to get even richer. So it's really an us vs them mentality. Either I get richer, or you get richer. Don't expect these people to start reasoning about making the company they work for competitive. At least this is the case in europe.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Interesting that this would be the case in Europe. Germany has had 'codetermination' laws for decades, where they have (typically union) representation on the boards of large corporations[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
    - koonsolo 6y ago
      This doesn't invalidate my remark though. Nothing says these union board members are there to make the company more competitive. They are there to provide better working conditions.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        Still, the point stands that of all the European states, labor is arguably strongest in Germany, and at the same time Germany industry is extremely competitive. If strong labor was a huge competitive disadvantage you'd think Germany would be falling behind, but instead it's quite the opposite.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Individual employees have every bit as adversarial a relationship to management as union members. They just have much less bargaining power.
- eru 6y ago
  What do you mean by less bargaining power? As an individual I feel like I have relatively more bargaining power, because when eg talking about pay I just need to convince the company to bump one total comp package, mine. So I can negotiate much more aggressively and get more done, then someone who tried to get the company to raise thousands of pay packages. Also, I have an easy time convincing the company that I am leaving (or not joining), if they don't accede to my demands. No union can credibly threaten that all unionized employees will quit, if they don't get a 40% pay rise.
  - atq2119 6y ago
    These may all be fine arguments as to why a high-level(!) software developer might not want to join a union. None of what you wrote applies to assembly line workers. And arguably, it doesn't apply to junior software devs either.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    Unions threaten that all employees will quit all.the.time. It’s called a strike. It’s their primary bargaining power. Yes, the workers will eventually come back to work, but only after they gain some concessions from management, and it can be a long time before they come back.
    - eru 6y ago
      I know about strikes. They are different than everyone quitting. > Yes, the workers will eventually come back to work, but only after they gain some concessions from management, and it can be a long time before they come back. Workers don't get paid while on strike (they get some money back from the union that they saved there themselves). There's no guarantee that management will make concessions. Yes, it can be a long time before workers come back.
justin66 6y ago
> I have a hard time squaring how you can be in a union with an adversarial relationship to management, whilst at the same time being an owner of the company. It's one or the other. Unionized ESOP companies aren't uncommon. You've got it a bit backwards about the adversarial relationship: having an ESOP and a union isn't some kind of organizational impossibility, and it can decrease the probability of a serious dispute between management and the union. [1] [1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr347.html https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr347.html
- npad 6y ago
  Interesting, yeah those are good points. I can certainly see it reducing the severity of disputes in theory. In practice though I'm skeptical. I've read a little about the history of UAW. They really seemed to view workers vs mgmt as an adversarial zero sum game. Meanwhile Toyota were developing their production system using the kaizen principle of bottom up continuous improvement. Unions played a huge role in making US autos uncompetitive against the Japanese brands for a long time. I want to be pro-union but it's hard when you observe their real world behaviour. All too often they slowly strangle their company, making it less and less competitive and innovative and ultimately dooming it to defeat by new entrants who aren't yet encumbered by unions.
  - eru 6y ago
    So it depends a bit on whether you talk about real world US unions like the UAW, or about what unions could be in theory and might be in other parts of the world. Eg German unions have a reputation, at least compared to the US, of cooperating much more with their host companies. Similar also for Scandinavian unions.
    - evgen 6y ago
      It could also be the case that US unions operate in a country where power is held by a class of people who would really prefer their serfs to STFU and get back to whatever dangerous, ill-paid task they were assigned. When the most egregious wrongs are simply illegal and never happen then it is much easier for capital and labor to have a less adversarial relationship, but when you operate in a country like the US I would assume it is necessary for a union to be a bit more aggressive in its actions and objectives.
avs733 6y ago
Unions don’t have to be adversarial...and it is often driven by management, as you are seeing here.
snypher 6y ago
"owner of the company"? This is common anti-union rhetoric. Am I an owner, with my $600 stock, and can I convince 89.5% of the other stock holders to vote with me?[0] Doesn't sound like ownership. [0] see supermajority voting
KaiserPro 6y ago
what? how is that not stopping people unionise? If I join a union at work, it has no bearing on my stock options. In the uk its illegal to discriminate like that, precisely because employers like tesla would make it economically impossible to join a union. As an aside, if you take away the shares, there is little incentive to work together to increase the share value. So of course unions are going to be incentivised differently.
klyrs 6y ago
Only, employee-owned co-ops demonstratee that you actually can have it both ways.

by npad 6y ago

mullingitover 6y ago

Why are these things at odds? It seems like the ideal outcome for the union would be to have a significant ownership stake in the company and share in its success, rather than have an adversarial relationship and drag down profits. Making the company uncompetitive in the market is bad for the union in the long run.

koonsolo 6y ago
Representatives of the union see the world differently. They don't see collaboration on the same goal, they see rich management exploiting employees to get even richer. So it's really an us vs them mentality. Either I get richer, or you get richer. Don't expect these people to start reasoning about making the company they work for competitive. At least this is the case in europe.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Interesting that this would be the case in Europe. Germany has had 'codetermination' laws for decades, where they have (typically union) representation on the boards of large corporations[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    This doesn't invalidate my remark though. Nothing says these union board members are there to make the company more competitive. They are there to provide better working conditions.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Still, the point stands that of all the European states, labor is arguably strongest in Germany, and at the same time Germany industry is extremely competitive. If strong labor was a huge competitive disadvantage you'd think Germany would be falling behind, but instead it's quite the opposite.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

Individual employees have every bit as adversarial a relationship to management as union members. They just have much less bargaining power.

eru 6y ago
What do you mean by less bargaining power? As an individual I feel like I have relatively more bargaining power, because when eg talking about pay I just need to convince the company to bump one total comp package, mine. So I can negotiate much more aggressively and get more done, then someone who tried to get the company to raise thousands of pay packages. Also, I have an easy time convincing the company that I am leaving (or not joining), if they don't accede to my demands. No union can credibly threaten that all unionized employees will quit, if they don't get a 40% pay rise.
- atq2119 6y ago
  These may all be fine arguments as to why a high-level(!) software developer might not want to join a union. None of what you wrote applies to assembly line workers. And arguably, it doesn't apply to junior software devs either.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  Unions threaten that all employees will quit all.the.time. It’s called a strike. It’s their primary bargaining power. Yes, the workers will eventually come back to work, but only after they gain some concessions from management, and it can be a long time before they come back.
  - eru 6y ago
    I know about strikes. They are different than everyone quitting. > Yes, the workers will eventually come back to work, but only after they gain some concessions from management, and it can be a long time before they come back. Workers don't get paid while on strike (they get some money back from the union that they saved there themselves). There's no guarantee that management will make concessions. Yes, it can be a long time before workers come back.

justin66 6y ago

> I have a hard time squaring how you can be in a union with an adversarial relationship to management, whilst at the same time being an owner of the company. It's one or the other. Unionized ESOP companies aren't uncommon. You've got it a bit backwards about the adversarial relationship: having an ESOP and a union isn't some kind of organizational impossibility, and it can decrease the probability of a serious dispute between management and the union. [1] [1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr347.html https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr347.html

npad 6y ago
Interesting, yeah those are good points. I can certainly see it reducing the severity of disputes in theory. In practice though I'm skeptical. I've read a little about the history of UAW. They really seemed to view workers vs mgmt as an adversarial zero sum game. Meanwhile Toyota were developing their production system using the kaizen principle of bottom up continuous improvement. Unions played a huge role in making US autos uncompetitive against the Japanese brands for a long time. I want to be pro-union but it's hard when you observe their real world behaviour. All too often they slowly strangle their company, making it less and less competitive and innovative and ultimately dooming it to defeat by new entrants who aren't yet encumbered by unions.
- eru 6y ago
  So it depends a bit on whether you talk about real world US unions like the UAW, or about what unions could be in theory and might be in other parts of the world. Eg German unions have a reputation, at least compared to the US, of cooperating much more with their host companies. Similar also for Scandinavian unions.
  - evgen 6y ago
    It could also be the case that US unions operate in a country where power is held by a class of people who would really prefer their serfs to STFU and get back to whatever dangerous, ill-paid task they were assigned. When the most egregious wrongs are simply illegal and never happen then it is much easier for capital and labor to have a less adversarial relationship, but when you operate in a country like the US I would assume it is necessary for a union to be a bit more aggressive in its actions and objectives.

avs733 6y ago

Unions don’t have to be adversarial...and it is often driven by management, as you are seeing here.

snypher 6y ago

"owner of the company"? This is common anti-union rhetoric. Am I an owner, with my $600 stock, and can I convince 89.5% of the other stock holders to vote with me?[0] Doesn't sound like ownership. [0] see supermajority voting

KaiserPro 6y ago

what? how is that not stopping people unionise? If I join a union at work, it has no bearing on my stock options. In the uk its illegal to discriminate like that, precisely because employers like tesla would make it economically impossible to join a union. As an aside, if you take away the shares, there is little incentive to work together to increase the share value. So of course unions are going to be incentivised differently.

klyrs 6y ago

Only, employee-owned co-ops demonstratee that you actually can have it both ways.