4 ms·

Isn't the entire point of a union to give you negotiating leverage? If you need the government to effectively do the negotiating for you by levying fines and s

Isn't the entire point of a union to give you negotiating leverage? If you need the government to effectively do the negotiating for you by levying fines and such whenever the company goes against the union, what exactly is the point of the union?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foerbert 6y ago
Huh? Don't roads exist to facilitate vehicle transportation? If you need to do construction in order to make roads, what exactly is the point of them? I don't understand what your thinking here is. You're comparing the expected results of a thing existing with possible actions to facilitate conditions for that thing to exist. Why are these supposed to be somehow equivalent or comparable?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think their point is that the American form of unionization is bunk. If you look to Europe workers are free to choose between many associations of voluntary unions which advocate for their specific interests. They are not forced to have a single representative for negotiations with their employer and are free to abstain from of participation as well.Much like the American voting system and American Congress, unions are winner take all majority rule. If you are in the minority of a union it may not advocate for your interest and you have no option to turn to.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    The term for this is "closed shop". I've no idea why the US unions tend to be closed-shop, possibly because the high antagonism from employers makes it the only stable solution.
    - Frondo 6y ago
      The Taft-Hartley Act banned closed shops in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States It's literally the first line of that section.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        So why are so many people in this thread complaining about "having" to join a union?
        opencl 6y ago
        The law bans employers from requiring people to be union members before they are hired. In states without right to work laws it is still legal to require employees to join the union after being hired.
        pjc50 6y ago
        So it's still a closed shop in practice? Was the only point of passing this law to confuse the issue?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        No. It's legal to require non members to pay an agency fee for the services the union is required to provide them.[1] [1] https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-member...
        makomk 6y ago
        On paper, that means you don't have to join the union in order to get a job - just pay the union fees and work under the union contract (which is to say, almost all the downsides of joining but without any actual say in how the union is run). In practice, I think people who do this tend to get blacklisted by the union and have trouble getting jobs in future. I know the Hollywood unions in particular are very aggressive and public about threatening anyone who takes that option with blacklisting, and there are zero consequences for them for doing this.
  - foerbert 6y ago
    I don't see how that could be their point. They said nothing about multiple unions, nor is the article in any way related to it.
  - mola 6y ago
    American mentality embraces zero sum game as the only possibilty, so the end game is usually bad but stable results.
- fastball 6y ago
  I guess I don't understand the bad behavior here. Tesla is allowed to not give anything they want to unionized workers. If you want to force companies to capitulate to unions, cut out the middleman and just force companies to give things directly to workers.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    The workers aren’t unionized yet. What the law is clear about, is that you’re not allowed to threaten workers for the act of trying to unionize the workplace.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      “We give our workers stock options now. We do not expect to do so under a union contract.” I don’t see that as “threatening workers”, but as a reasonable communication between employer and employees and a proper counterbalance against union claims that the workers will be better off if they unionize. “We give our workers stock options now. No other automaker working under a union contract does so.” is something that I don't think anyone could reasonably find as threatening (even I don't think the first one is either, some may). As an employee, I benefit from more information from both sides of the issue rather than having the union organizers be able to communicate unfettered and the company communications be restricted from pointing out any possible or foreseeable downsides.
      - foerbert 6y ago
        That's real easy to say when there isn't a union yet. And the company has zero incentive to give any kind of realistic and useful information in this situation. They can say whatever they want, and it doesn't mean anything. They don't even know what the non-existent union will want or care about later, so how they can have any accurate expectations even if they are perfectly rational and honest. The only purpose these statements serve is to try to prevent unionization. Part of why this is not a simple "both sides" issue is because we're talking about one side that exists and one side that might one day exist. The non-extant union can't weigh in on company statements or make any statements of their own. So these rules exist to help ensure the workers are not unduly influenced by the company when they consider making that union finally exist. I don't see a problem with this.
cma 6y ago
I guess businesses don't need the government laws enforcing shareholder voting rights and minority shareholder protections then right?
- fastball 6y ago
  No absolutely the government should enforce legal agreements via the legal system. But that's not what this is suggesting, right? This is suggesting the government should treat unions preferentially, not equitably.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    No, this is suggesting that government should enforce workers' rights to decide freely if they want to unionize. Companies routinely skirt this right by taking explicit anti-unionization efforts, and there are many firms specializing in this.
    - fastball 6y ago
      What is required for "free" decision-making?
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        Making sure no one is strong arming or threatening, harassing, or bribing the ones who have to make that decision, nor thought leaders among them.
        fastball 6y ago
        Yes, I would say that is kinda a given. Don't think Elon's tweet counts as any of these things though.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > This is suggesting the government should treat unions preferentially, not equitably. Equity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see how this law is treating unions preferentially, and am interested in how you distinguish it with the aforementioned minority shareholder protections.
kelnos 6y ago
The problem is that collective action is difficult before you have the union, and companies/executives have a lot of power to dissuade people from forming unions. In the past that's involved physical threats and actual violence. Nowadays I expect it's more posturing and economic threats, but they can still have the desired effect. The point of these sorts of laws is to give unions a fighting chance to take hold in places where employees want them, but are afraid of retaliation if they tried to form one.
URSpider94 6y ago
The union doesn’t exist yet at their site. The government provides the guarantee of a fair election on whether to unionize, free of threats from either management or the union. Once the site is unionized, the union can indeed defend itself by negotiating with management.
alkonaut 6y ago
The governments role should be to ensure a level playing field between employers and labor. That means the government at a minimum needs to protect those who want to organize.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

foerbert 6y ago

Huh? Don't roads exist to facilitate vehicle transportation? If you need to do construction in order to make roads, what exactly is the point of them? I don't understand what your thinking here is. You're comparing the expected results of a thing existing with possible actions to facilitate conditions for that thing to exist. Why are these supposed to be somehow equivalent or comparable?

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think their point is that the American form of unionization is bunk. If you look to Europe workers are free to choose between many associations of voluntary unions which advocate for their specific interests. They are not forced to have a single representative for negotiations with their employer and are free to abstain from of participation as well.Much like the American voting system and American Congress, unions are winner take all majority rule. If you are in the minority of a union it may not advocate for your interest and you have no option to turn to.
- pjc50 6y ago
  The term for this is "closed shop". I've no idea why the US unions tend to be closed-shop, possibly because the high antagonism from employers makes it the only stable solution.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    The Taft-Hartley Act banned closed shops in 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States It's literally the first line of that section.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      So why are so many people in this thread complaining about "having" to join a union?
      - opencl 6y ago
        The law bans employers from requiring people to be union members before they are hired. In states without right to work laws it is still legal to require employees to join the union after being hired.
        pjc50 6y ago
        So it's still a closed shop in practice? Was the only point of passing this law to confuse the issue?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        No. It's legal to require non members to pay an agency fee for the services the union is required to provide them.[1] [1] https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-membership/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-compulsory-union-member...
      - makomk 6y ago
        On paper, that means you don't have to join the union in order to get a job - just pay the union fees and work under the union contract (which is to say, almost all the downsides of joining but without any actual say in how the union is run). In practice, I think people who do this tend to get blacklisted by the union and have trouble getting jobs in future. I know the Hollywood unions in particular are very aggressive and public about threatening anyone who takes that option with blacklisting, and there are zero consequences for them for doing this.
- foerbert 6y ago
  I don't see how that could be their point. They said nothing about multiple unions, nor is the article in any way related to it.
- mola 6y ago
  American mentality embraces zero sum game as the only possibilty, so the end game is usually bad but stable results.
fastball 6y ago
I guess I don't understand the bad behavior here. Tesla is allowed to not give anything they want to unionized workers. If you want to force companies to capitulate to unions, cut out the middleman and just force companies to give things directly to workers.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  The workers aren’t unionized yet. What the law is clear about, is that you’re not allowed to threaten workers for the act of trying to unionize the workplace.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    “We give our workers stock options now. We do not expect to do so under a union contract.” I don’t see that as “threatening workers”, but as a reasonable communication between employer and employees and a proper counterbalance against union claims that the workers will be better off if they unionize. “We give our workers stock options now. No other automaker working under a union contract does so.” is something that I don't think anyone could reasonably find as threatening (even I don't think the first one is either, some may). As an employee, I benefit from more information from both sides of the issue rather than having the union organizers be able to communicate unfettered and the company communications be restricted from pointing out any possible or foreseeable downsides.
    - foerbert 6y ago
      That's real easy to say when there isn't a union yet. And the company has zero incentive to give any kind of realistic and useful information in this situation. They can say whatever they want, and it doesn't mean anything. They don't even know what the non-existent union will want or care about later, so how they can have any accurate expectations even if they are perfectly rational and honest. The only purpose these statements serve is to try to prevent unionization. Part of why this is not a simple "both sides" issue is because we're talking about one side that exists and one side that might one day exist. The non-extant union can't weigh in on company statements or make any statements of their own. So these rules exist to help ensure the workers are not unduly influenced by the company when they consider making that union finally exist. I don't see a problem with this.

cma 6y ago

I guess businesses don't need the government laws enforcing shareholder voting rights and minority shareholder protections then right?

fastball 6y ago
No absolutely the government should enforce legal agreements via the legal system. But that's not what this is suggesting, right? This is suggesting the government should treat unions preferentially, not equitably.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  No, this is suggesting that government should enforce workers' rights to decide freely if they want to unionize. Companies routinely skirt this right by taking explicit anti-unionization efforts, and there are many firms specializing in this.
  - fastball 6y ago
    What is required for "free" decision-making?
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Making sure no one is strong arming or threatening, harassing, or bribing the ones who have to make that decision, nor thought leaders among them.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Yes, I would say that is kinda a given. Don't think Elon's tweet counts as any of these things though.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > This is suggesting the government should treat unions preferentially, not equitably. Equity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see how this law is treating unions preferentially, and am interested in how you distinguish it with the aforementioned minority shareholder protections.

kelnos 6y ago

The problem is that collective action is difficult before you have the union, and companies/executives have a lot of power to dissuade people from forming unions. In the past that's involved physical threats and actual violence. Nowadays I expect it's more posturing and economic threats, but they can still have the desired effect. The point of these sorts of laws is to give unions a fighting chance to take hold in places where employees want them, but are afraid of retaliation if they tried to form one.

URSpider94 6y ago

The union doesn’t exist yet at their site. The government provides the guarantee of a fair election on whether to unionize, free of threats from either management or the union. Once the site is unionized, the union can indeed defend itself by negotiating with management.

alkonaut 6y ago

The governments role should be to ensure a level playing field between employers and labor. That means the government at a minimum needs to protect those who want to organize.