4 ms·

>But historically, as unions have developed in this country, they have mostly just been divisive. They have put management on one side of the fence, employees o

>But historically, as unions have developed in this country, they have mostly just been divisive. They have put management on one side of the fence, employees on the other, and themselves in the middle as almost a separate business, one that depends on division between the other two camps. But workers and management really are on two different sides of the fence. We have intrinsically opposed material interests. Management are not our friends.

refurb 6y ago
But my understanding is that's not how unions work in Europe. Typically the unions see themselves as another party that benefits from a successful and profitable company. You are correct that they have different goals, but the difference is is that they want the same thing. At least in the US, you see much more antagonistic approach. Company is facing cheap imports that hurt sales? Some unions say "fuck you, not my problem, pay me".
- vidarh 6y ago
  The more cooperative relationship in Europe was the result of the labour movement largely winning, in the sense of gaining sufficient political power that the balance of legal protections shifted to a point where the struggles even when heated are generally much less of an existential crisis. Keep in mind that for many decades, especially from the 1840's onwards, much of Europe was a total powder-key with countries facing revolutions left right and centre, and the political landscape changing rapidly to accommodate this. E.g. Bismarcks massive healthcare and pension reforms in the 1880's were inexorably linked to his fear of revolution. To take another example, in 1923 the Norwegian right wing were absolutely horrified when - after they failed to negotiate a coalition - the king appointed the Labour Party leader to the post of prime minister (at the time Labour was still a communist party); the government was voted down immediately (and the king would have known that would happen), but it still forced the other parties to realise they could not ignore the demands of the labour movement any more. In the post-war periods the social democratic and socialist parties across Western Europe either got into power or became a substantial threat to the right in most countries, and as a result you saw sweeping welfare reforms, healthcare reforms and others across large parts of the continent. Unions that had for decades in many cases been outright communists were moderated by the combination of starting to fear the Soviets coupled with major wins for labour rights that made them less inclined to rock the boat. It's a whole lot easier to win support for a more cooperative approach when people saw negotiation actually working for them, and employer increasingly being willing to sit down from the start rather than employ the kind of tactics Amazon has been accused of using (I'm not taking a stance on whether or not they've done the things they've been accused of, but these kinds of things are not new in terms of US employers fighting unionisation). US unions have remained far more militant because US employers have remained far more militant. Active use of actual violence on both sides remained prevalent much longer, for starters. You're not going to see those hostile fronts change unless workers rights are substantially strengthened to the point that not enough people find the hardline approach worthwhile any more.
  - refurb 6y ago
    This view seems to completely ignore the difference structure of unions in the EU. And unions didn’t win in the US? Have you looked into the auto industry unions at all? The certainly did win for a few decades and it basically broke the back of GM.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      > This view seems to completely ignore the difference structure of unions in the EU. The difference in structure is not that great. The main distinction is that closed shops are extremely rare in Europe, but closed shops are fairly rare in the US too. Other than that, union organizing in the US is still lagging decades behind because such a small portion of the workforce is unionised. > And unions didn’t win in the US? Have you looked into the auto industry unions at all? The certainly did win for a few decades and it basically broke the back of GM. No, unions did not win in the US in any shape or form. Union membership in the US is extremely low. Union influence on political parties is extremely low. Union ownership or influence on media is extremely low. US unions struggle to fight for rights that have been taken for granted across most of Europe for half a century or more after unions won them. US unions were groundbreaking, but their progress stalled outside a few areas and few sectors.

refurb 6y ago

But my understanding is that's not how unions work in Europe. Typically the unions see themselves as another party that benefits from a successful and profitable company. You are correct that they have different goals, but the difference is is that they want the same thing. At least in the US, you see much more antagonistic approach. Company is facing cheap imports that hurt sales? Some unions say "fuck you, not my problem, pay me".

vidarh 6y ago
The more cooperative relationship in Europe was the result of the labour movement largely winning, in the sense of gaining sufficient political power that the balance of legal protections shifted to a point where the struggles even when heated are generally much less of an existential crisis. Keep in mind that for many decades, especially from the 1840's onwards, much of Europe was a total powder-key with countries facing revolutions left right and centre, and the political landscape changing rapidly to accommodate this. E.g. Bismarcks massive healthcare and pension reforms in the 1880's were inexorably linked to his fear of revolution. To take another example, in 1923 the Norwegian right wing were absolutely horrified when - after they failed to negotiate a coalition - the king appointed the Labour Party leader to the post of prime minister (at the time Labour was still a communist party); the government was voted down immediately (and the king would have known that would happen), but it still forced the other parties to realise they could not ignore the demands of the labour movement any more. In the post-war periods the social democratic and socialist parties across Western Europe either got into power or became a substantial threat to the right in most countries, and as a result you saw sweeping welfare reforms, healthcare reforms and others across large parts of the continent. Unions that had for decades in many cases been outright communists were moderated by the combination of starting to fear the Soviets coupled with major wins for labour rights that made them less inclined to rock the boat. It's a whole lot easier to win support for a more cooperative approach when people saw negotiation actually working for them, and employer increasingly being willing to sit down from the start rather than employ the kind of tactics Amazon has been accused of using (I'm not taking a stance on whether or not they've done the things they've been accused of, but these kinds of things are not new in terms of US employers fighting unionisation). US unions have remained far more militant because US employers have remained far more militant. Active use of actual violence on both sides remained prevalent much longer, for starters. You're not going to see those hostile fronts change unless workers rights are substantially strengthened to the point that not enough people find the hardline approach worthwhile any more.
- refurb 6y ago
  This view seems to completely ignore the difference structure of unions in the EU. And unions didn’t win in the US? Have you looked into the auto industry unions at all? The certainly did win for a few decades and it basically broke the back of GM.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    > This view seems to completely ignore the difference structure of unions in the EU. The difference in structure is not that great. The main distinction is that closed shops are extremely rare in Europe, but closed shops are fairly rare in the US too. Other than that, union organizing in the US is still lagging decades behind because such a small portion of the workforce is unionised. > And unions didn’t win in the US? Have you looked into the auto industry unions at all? The certainly did win for a few decades and it basically broke the back of GM. No, unions did not win in the US in any shape or form. Union membership in the US is extremely low. Union influence on political parties is extremely low. Union ownership or influence on media is extremely low. US unions struggle to fight for rights that have been taken for granted across most of Europe for half a century or more after unions won them. US unions were groundbreaking, but their progress stalled outside a few areas and few sectors.