5 ms·

Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company moves aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad for the individual worker? I keep seeing this p

by airza 5y ago

Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company moves aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad for the individual worker? I keep seeing this perspective and it is baffling to me.

wccrawford 5y ago
IMO, some unions are bad for everyone. Worker and company alike. Most (maybe all?) unions are meant to oppose the company. Their stated goal is get more for the workers, which means less for the company. But to be fair, some unions actually end up helping companies that can't understand that treating your workers well actually has benefits for the company, too, and if you treat them too poorly, there will be a net detriment to the company. These unions actually help everyone, but it requires that the company really have their head up their ass. So it's not surprising to me that every single company fights the union. The whole point of the union is to fight the company on behalf of the workers.
- gibspaulding 5y ago
  > But to be fair, some unions actually end up helping companies... When I was in college I worked for a roofing company where there actually seemed to be a pretty healthy relationship between the local unions and the companies employing their members. The unions ran a great apprenticeship program, were super strict on safety, and seemed to have a reputation in the area for doing good work. This meant that companies had a good idea what they were getting when they paid the premium for a journeyman. My impression was that being a "union shop" was a differentiator for businesses and that there were plenty of customers that were willing to pay more for the confidence that things would be done right. Of course the common complaint for a situation like this is that you end up with journeymen who abuse their position and don't meet the standards they are supposed to, but I didn't seem much of this. I got the impression that the union did a pretty good job of keeping their members in line, especially when it came to safety infractions. It's a shame that this doesn't seem to be more common. It was an amazing program since if you could land an apprenticeship (and they were desperate for people) you could theoretically climb the ladder from poverty to the middle class in 5 years.
seneca 5y ago
> Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company moves aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad for the individual worker? It's entirely possible for unions to be bad for both the company and the workers. A loss for one is not inherently a gain for the other.
whitepaint 5y ago
Listen to Milton Friedman. He explains this (and many more questions regarding the economy) extremely well. Begin with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 (The Real World Effects Of Unions)
syshum 5y ago
Unions are generally good if your living situation, and needs generally mirror the majority of your co-workers. However if you have unique needs, or desires then your needs will take a back seat over the "majority" In modern society we seem to have a majoritarian view of everything, and are losing individualism. An example of this is the often advocated for Maternity / Paternity leave, this is something that is often fought for by unions as the majority of employees need / desire that leave. However if you are someone that do not intention of ever having children then you may prefer more Vacation time, or more PTO time, or greater health benefits in some other arena, your desires however will be ignored because the Majority wants the Maternity / Paternity leave
- CPLX 5y ago
  This is such a common myth that ignores that industries with absolutely extreme variations in skill and compensation between individual workers work quite well with unions, like the entertainment and professional sports unions.
  - syshum 5y ago
    It does not ignore it, because those "unions" are not the type of unions people generally talk about in the US when they talk about Employment Unions, and would not be the unions employed in the US for Uber which would most certainly be a Closed Shop and not allow for the range of individualized labor deals you are talking about when it comes to unions for Entertainment and Sports, those unions are the EXCEPTION not the rule when it comes to Labor Unions in the US
Chris2048 5y ago
> if they are so bad for the individual worker isn't it possible that they are good for the majority of workers, but bad for a few? Maybe it is that minority of workers that hold this perspective?
kortilla 5y ago
Isn’t it kinda weird that so many parents move aggressively to prevent their kids from eating candy for dinner if it makes them sick? > I keep seeing this perspective and it is baffling to me. It’s baffling to you because you haven’t considered that many companies have good relationships with employees and are interested in that relationship staying non-adversarial.
- freeone3000 5y ago
  The relationship between employer and employee is innately adversarial. Employer decides conditions of employment and pay, employee decides whether to keep working or not. It's a huge power imbalance.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > It's a huge power imbalance. No it’s not. You literally just quit and move on. This is one of the easiest environments to find a job in if you have a decent resume of actually working somewhere for more than a few months.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Companies want to keep workers non-adversarial. They give themselves the right to be as adversarial as they want. They're likely to be extremely adversarial against workers who want a raise in pay, better hours, better working conditions, generally anything that would reduce their profits in any way.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > They're likely to be extremely adversarial against workers who want a raise in pay, better hours, better working conditions, generally anything that would reduce their profits in any way. This wasn’t true in literally every business I’ve worked for. If you expect someone to behave adversarially and you act in kind (forming unions), then you’ve already poisoned the relationship. Perhaps it’s different because I’ve been in highly skilled labor pools but you’re setting yourself up for a life of bare minimums and limited advancement if you assume every business relationship you go into is adversarial.
josephcsible 5y ago
No, it's not weird at all. Things aren't automatically good for companies just because they're bad for workers. A lot of unions are bad for both.

by airza 5y ago

Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company moves aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad for the individual worker? I keep seeing this perspective and it is baffling to me.

wccrawford 5y ago

IMO, some unions are bad for everyone. Worker and company alike. Most (maybe all?) unions are meant to oppose the company. Their stated goal is get more for the workers, which means less for the company. But to be fair, some unions actually end up helping companies that can't understand that treating your workers well actually has benefits for the company, too, and if you treat them too poorly, there will be a net detriment to the company. These unions actually help everyone, but it requires that the company really have their head up their ass. So it's not surprising to me that every single company fights the union. The whole point of the union is to fight the company on behalf of the workers.

gibspaulding 5y ago
> But to be fair, some unions actually end up helping companies... When I was in college I worked for a roofing company where there actually seemed to be a pretty healthy relationship between the local unions and the companies employing their members. The unions ran a great apprenticeship program, were super strict on safety, and seemed to have a reputation in the area for doing good work. This meant that companies had a good idea what they were getting when they paid the premium for a journeyman. My impression was that being a "union shop" was a differentiator for businesses and that there were plenty of customers that were willing to pay more for the confidence that things would be done right. Of course the common complaint for a situation like this is that you end up with journeymen who abuse their position and don't meet the standards they are supposed to, but I didn't seem much of this. I got the impression that the union did a pretty good job of keeping their members in line, especially when it came to safety infractions. It's a shame that this doesn't seem to be more common. It was an amazing program since if you could land an apprenticeship (and they were desperate for people) you could theoretically climb the ladder from poverty to the middle class in 5 years.

seneca 5y ago

> Isn't it kinda weird that every single large company moves aggressively to crush labor unions if they are so bad for the individual worker? It's entirely possible for unions to be bad for both the company and the workers. A loss for one is not inherently a gain for the other.

whitepaint 5y ago

Listen to Milton Friedman. He explains this (and many more questions regarding the economy) extremely well. Begin with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4 (The Real World Effects Of Unions)

syshum 5y ago

Unions are generally good if your living situation, and needs generally mirror the majority of your co-workers. However if you have unique needs, or desires then your needs will take a back seat over the "majority" In modern society we seem to have a majoritarian view of everything, and are losing individualism. An example of this is the often advocated for Maternity / Paternity leave, this is something that is often fought for by unions as the majority of employees need / desire that leave. However if you are someone that do not intention of ever having children then you may prefer more Vacation time, or more PTO time, or greater health benefits in some other arena, your desires however will be ignored because the Majority wants the Maternity / Paternity leave

CPLX 5y ago
This is such a common myth that ignores that industries with absolutely extreme variations in skill and compensation between individual workers work quite well with unions, like the entertainment and professional sports unions.
- syshum 5y ago
  It does not ignore it, because those "unions" are not the type of unions people generally talk about in the US when they talk about Employment Unions, and would not be the unions employed in the US for Uber which would most certainly be a Closed Shop and not allow for the range of individualized labor deals you are talking about when it comes to unions for Entertainment and Sports, those unions are the EXCEPTION not the rule when it comes to Labor Unions in the US

Chris2048 5y ago

> if they are so bad for the individual worker isn't it possible that they are good for the majority of workers, but bad for a few? Maybe it is that minority of workers that hold this perspective?

kortilla 5y ago

Isn’t it kinda weird that so many parents move aggressively to prevent their kids from eating candy for dinner if it makes them sick? > I keep seeing this perspective and it is baffling to me. It’s baffling to you because you haven’t considered that many companies have good relationships with employees and are interested in that relationship staying non-adversarial.

freeone3000 5y ago
The relationship between employer and employee is innately adversarial. Employer decides conditions of employment and pay, employee decides whether to keep working or not. It's a huge power imbalance.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > It's a huge power imbalance. No it’s not. You literally just quit and move on. This is one of the easiest environments to find a job in if you have a decent resume of actually working somewhere for more than a few months.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Companies want to keep workers non-adversarial. They give themselves the right to be as adversarial as they want. They're likely to be extremely adversarial against workers who want a raise in pay, better hours, better working conditions, generally anything that would reduce their profits in any way.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > They're likely to be extremely adversarial against workers who want a raise in pay, better hours, better working conditions, generally anything that would reduce their profits in any way. This wasn’t true in literally every business I’ve worked for. If you expect someone to behave adversarially and you act in kind (forming unions), then you’ve already poisoned the relationship. Perhaps it’s different because I’ve been in highly skilled labor pools but you’re setting yourself up for a life of bare minimums and limited advancement if you assume every business relationship you go into is adversarial.

josephcsible 5y ago

No, it's not weird at all. Things aren't automatically good for companies just because they're bad for workers. A lot of unions are bad for both.