4 ms·

> What unskilled workers need isn't a union, it's some way to make unskilled labor more scarce, e.g. a UBI [...] Here in Germany, unions work as intended. The

by adwn 5y ago

> What unskilled workers need isn't a union, it's some way to make unskilled labor more scarce, e.g. a UBI [...] Here in Germany, unions work as intended. The solution is simple: you can't be fired for participating in a strike. There, problem solved, no UBI necessary. > The problem with unions is that skilled workers don't need them Also wrong. There a many unions for skilled workers in Germany.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> The solution is simple: you can't be fired for participating in a strike. If you're on strike you're not showing up so you're not getting paid. They just let you stay on strike forever and in the meantime hire somebody else. Assuming they don't just close the warehouse, so that you're not getting fired for going on strike, you're getting laid off because the job no longer exists.
- kelnos 5y ago
  That doesn't always work, especially when all the workers available for those positions are members of a union. And closing a warehouse is a drastic measure that will undoubtedly cause harm to the company's finances. That's not a decision they'd make lightly. Striking actually can work, and I find it strange that you seem to believe that unions aren't effective. Despite their problems, unions tend to work ok in the US, and even better in other places where they have healthier attitudes toward employment.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > That doesn't always work, especially when all the workers available for those positions are members of a union. But they're not, because it's unskilled labor. They can just hire anyone off the street. > And closing a warehouse is a drastic measure that will undoubtedly cause harm to the company's finances. If you close a warehouse, it's still a warehouse. You sell it to Walmart or Target and pretty much get all of your money back. That's the problem with the whole thing. A strike is brinkmanship. It hurts the workers and the company both. The idea is that if you're willing to hold out longer than they are, you can get what you want. Which you might be able to do if going on strike shuts down their whole business. But going on strike only causes the 10112 mile journey the goods take from source to destination to become a 10188 mile journey. They just route it through some other path. From the company's perspective it's a mild inconvenience that they could suffer indefinitely without ever feeling the need to concede anything over it. Whereas for the warehouse workers, the longer they strike the longer they're not getting paid. So they blink first, and the company knows they will, so the union can't gain anything from striking and is consequently useless.
    - adwn 5y ago
      > They can just hire anyone off the street. No, they can't, not quickly. First they have to find a large number of new hires (which takes time), then those new hires have to be taught how to use the equipment and do the job in general (which takes time), then it takes even more time until they're fully productive. > They just route it through some other path. You have this weird idea that only a single warehouse would be put on strike. Why? Do you think there would be one union per warehouse? > Whereas for the warehouse workers, the longer they strike the longer they're not getting paid. The way this typically works is that workers pay union dues, some of which is used to replace their pay during a strike. Those funds aren't endless, but usually sufficient to force the company to make concessions. Again, unions actually work outside the US. Why are you ignoring the evidence that they do?

by adwn 5y ago

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> The solution is simple: you can't be fired for participating in a strike. If you're on strike you're not showing up so you're not getting paid. They just let you stay on strike forever and in the meantime hire somebody else. Assuming they don't just close the warehouse, so that you're not getting fired for going on strike, you're getting laid off because the job no longer exists.

kelnos 5y ago
That doesn't always work, especially when all the workers available for those positions are members of a union. And closing a warehouse is a drastic measure that will undoubtedly cause harm to the company's finances. That's not a decision they'd make lightly. Striking actually can work, and I find it strange that you seem to believe that unions aren't effective. Despite their problems, unions tend to work ok in the US, and even better in other places where they have healthier attitudes toward employment.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > That doesn't always work, especially when all the workers available for those positions are members of a union. But they're not, because it's unskilled labor. They can just hire anyone off the street. > And closing a warehouse is a drastic measure that will undoubtedly cause harm to the company's finances. If you close a warehouse, it's still a warehouse. You sell it to Walmart or Target and pretty much get all of your money back. That's the problem with the whole thing. A strike is brinkmanship. It hurts the workers and the company both. The idea is that if you're willing to hold out longer than they are, you can get what you want. Which you might be able to do if going on strike shuts down their whole business. But going on strike only causes the 10112 mile journey the goods take from source to destination to become a 10188 mile journey. They just route it through some other path. From the company's perspective it's a mild inconvenience that they could suffer indefinitely without ever feeling the need to concede anything over it. Whereas for the warehouse workers, the longer they strike the longer they're not getting paid. So they blink first, and the company knows they will, so the union can't gain anything from striking and is consequently useless.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > They can just hire anyone off the street. No, they can't, not quickly. First they have to find a large number of new hires (which takes time), then those new hires have to be taught how to use the equipment and do the job in general (which takes time), then it takes even more time until they're fully productive. > They just route it through some other path. You have this weird idea that only a single warehouse would be put on strike. Why? Do you think there would be one union per warehouse? > Whereas for the warehouse workers, the longer they strike the longer they're not getting paid. The way this typically works is that workers pay union dues, some of which is used to replace their pay during a strike. Those funds aren't endless, but usually sufficient to force the company to make concessions. Again, unions actually work outside the US. Why are you ignoring the evidence that they do?