4 ms·

The article indicates various unions did adjacent strikes until McDonald's set their pay to $22/h. I'm not sure how hugely helpful this is without considering

The article indicates various unions did adjacent strikes until McDonald's set their pay to $22/h. I'm not sure how hugely helpful this is without considering all of the knock on effects and what all of that means. We could demand $50/h for them as well or otherwise demand that everyone in the country have the same pay. It would be better if someone could make the case for some kind of net gain in having such prices fixed at any given place.

hjorthjort 5y ago
That's exactly what unions do. They consider what a reasonable salary for their members are, usually in long and meticulous negotiations with the employers. They are not idiots. They know that if you drive labor prices too high then there are fewer jobs to go around. It's about striking a balance where businesses get to be profitable and expansive, while some of that gets redistributed to workers. The reason that we don't want the government to set minimum wages and benefits is because that's too crude a tool. The best trade-offs, sacrifices and share of spoils varies, and having the unions of different sectors negotiate with the employers (themselves usually organized in unions) is that you can optimize a lot more so that everyone wins.
- yxwvut 5y ago
  Unions have an incumbency problem in which, yes, they're concerned with the effects of pushing too hard, but only insofar as it affects their existing members. See also: significantly tenure-based pay scales for unskilled labor.
  - doikor 5y ago
    The contracts the unions negotiate in the nordics apply to everyone in the sector. So it makes no difference whatsoever for the pay of anyone if they are a union member or not. The main benefits of being part of an union here is stuff like union lawyer being made available to you if you have a dispute with your employer. And obviously more voice in who will represent you in the negotiations between the government, employers and employees.
- jollybean 5y ago
  This is definitely not true - and a misunderstanding of the power equation. Unions represent their members (sometimes not equally). That's it. They try to extract the most. That's it. They are not looking out for anyone's best interests but their own, they are not setting prices necessarily rationally, they are not acting for the benefit of the community at large. There are 5 'factions' in a companies power dynamic: 1) Owners 2) Executives 3) Labour (i.e. Unions) 4) Customers 5) Suppliers + Arguably 'other financiers' (i.e.lenders) make up a 6th. + There are externalities, like 'the environment' The surpluses will be divided among those parties given wherever the power equilibrium rests. If a company is very weak compared to it's customer (like having Apple as a main customer), it won't make a lot of profit so not a ton of surpluses for the other groups. This is called a 'Monopsony' (i.e. Apple has power over it's supply chain). If a company is very weak compared to it's supply chain (like a small retail store), they're not going to capture much surplus either. If the investors have great leverage because capital is sparse, they get more surplus. If money is everywhere, they have less leverage. Union power is an odd one because it's driven by non-market forces i.e. the regulatory limits of what unions can and cannot do given the local laws. In some regions, they are very powerful with (aka Germany, Denmark) with varying kinds of influence. In the US, the auto-workers Unions are incredibly powerful, so much so that the standards that they establish fold-over into the non-unionized plants. In a sense, the government roughly sets union wages by imparting the degree of power that unions have to strike etc...
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    > They are not looking out for anyone's best interests but their own So you don’t think they care that their members can keep their jobs long-term? Is that not in their interest? To imply that all unions without fail will push for maximum possible compensation in the short-term, at the expense of any other concern, is simplified to such a degree that it no longer matches reality.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      I didn't write those things though. "So you don’t think they care that their members can keep their jobs long-term? Is that not in their interest?" I don't care one way or the other. I'm saying that a Union is an organized body of power that protects it's own self-interest, and nobody else's. "To imply that all unions without fail will push for maximum possible compensation in the short-term, at the expense of any other concern, " I didn't write or imply that. I'm wrote that Unions will use their power to maximize the returns above all else. Obviously, if they try to negotiate $200K salaries for their staff, they know they will be out of jobs. However - every single dollar of profit to shareholders, added surplus to buyers/suppliers would be considered 'their money' in this equation, to the extent they can, they'll want to take all of those surpluses - exactly like other participants. Do you think their suppliers will sell for a dime less than they can? Will their customers pay a dollar more than they have to? Will management want to pay more than they have to? A Union is not a benevolent thing, it's just a power centre acting in it's own interest and that's it.
chownie 5y ago
My understanding from the text was that McDonald's had to abide by sectoral pay regulations, so the they're paying the minimum wage but Denmark has a much finer grained approach to that minimum? I didn't read that they'd strike until a specific pay number was reached from that page, just that McDonald's had to operate under the same conditions as their same industry peers
- mrweasel 5y ago
  Exactly, they didn't just go straight to $22 an hour, they agreed to follow the deal made between their sector of industry and the unions for that sector. People seem to have the impression that the unions dictate the compensation and benefits, they do not. It's a negotiation between the companies and the unions, and the state is observes (unless negotiations fail). The Danish model allow for continuous adaptation of the compensation and benefits. The companies have just as much influence as the unions do. The model allows companies to avoid a minimum wage, which may not be beneficial to companies if a particular sector has a slowdown.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    It works much the same her in Norway too.
  - manmal 5y ago
    That’s how it works in multiple other countries in the EU too, like Germany and Austria.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Finland is same. And it really makes some sense. Why should each individual employer negotiate individually with their workers, when both sides can pool together for more leverage. Also it removes some aspects of competition you don't need to worry that you have to pay more for your labour than the other burger chains.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yes, but my point is that is not the interesting part. The interesting part is where the $22 is arrived at from.

hjorthjort 5y ago

That's exactly what unions do. They consider what a reasonable salary for their members are, usually in long and meticulous negotiations with the employers. They are not idiots. They know that if you drive labor prices too high then there are fewer jobs to go around. It's about striking a balance where businesses get to be profitable and expansive, while some of that gets redistributed to workers. The reason that we don't want the government to set minimum wages and benefits is because that's too crude a tool. The best trade-offs, sacrifices and share of spoils varies, and having the unions of different sectors negotiate with the employers (themselves usually organized in unions) is that you can optimize a lot more so that everyone wins.

yxwvut 5y ago
Unions have an incumbency problem in which, yes, they're concerned with the effects of pushing too hard, but only insofar as it affects their existing members. See also: significantly tenure-based pay scales for unskilled labor.
- doikor 5y ago
  The contracts the unions negotiate in the nordics apply to everyone in the sector. So it makes no difference whatsoever for the pay of anyone if they are a union member or not. The main benefits of being part of an union here is stuff like union lawyer being made available to you if you have a dispute with your employer. And obviously more voice in who will represent you in the negotiations between the government, employers and employees.
jollybean 5y ago
This is definitely not true - and a misunderstanding of the power equation. Unions represent their members (sometimes not equally). That's it. They try to extract the most. That's it. They are not looking out for anyone's best interests but their own, they are not setting prices necessarily rationally, they are not acting for the benefit of the community at large. There are 5 'factions' in a companies power dynamic: 1) Owners 2) Executives 3) Labour (i.e. Unions) 4) Customers 5) Suppliers + Arguably 'other financiers' (i.e.lenders) make up a 6th. + There are externalities, like 'the environment' The surpluses will be divided among those parties given wherever the power equilibrium rests. If a company is very weak compared to it's customer (like having Apple as a main customer), it won't make a lot of profit so not a ton of surpluses for the other groups. This is called a 'Monopsony' (i.e. Apple has power over it's supply chain). If a company is very weak compared to it's supply chain (like a small retail store), they're not going to capture much surplus either. If the investors have great leverage because capital is sparse, they get more surplus. If money is everywhere, they have less leverage. Union power is an odd one because it's driven by non-market forces i.e. the regulatory limits of what unions can and cannot do given the local laws. In some regions, they are very powerful with (aka Germany, Denmark) with varying kinds of influence. In the US, the auto-workers Unions are incredibly powerful, so much so that the standards that they establish fold-over into the non-unionized plants. In a sense, the government roughly sets union wages by imparting the degree of power that unions have to strike etc...
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  > They are not looking out for anyone's best interests but their own So you don’t think they care that their members can keep their jobs long-term? Is that not in their interest? To imply that all unions without fail will push for maximum possible compensation in the short-term, at the expense of any other concern, is simplified to such a degree that it no longer matches reality.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I didn't write those things though. "So you don’t think they care that their members can keep their jobs long-term? Is that not in their interest?" I don't care one way or the other. I'm saying that a Union is an organized body of power that protects it's own self-interest, and nobody else's. "To imply that all unions without fail will push for maximum possible compensation in the short-term, at the expense of any other concern, " I didn't write or imply that. I'm wrote that Unions will use their power to maximize the returns above all else. Obviously, if they try to negotiate $200K salaries for their staff, they know they will be out of jobs. However - every single dollar of profit to shareholders, added surplus to buyers/suppliers would be considered 'their money' in this equation, to the extent they can, they'll want to take all of those surpluses - exactly like other participants. Do you think their suppliers will sell for a dime less than they can? Will their customers pay a dollar more than they have to? Will management want to pay more than they have to? A Union is not a benevolent thing, it's just a power centre acting in it's own interest and that's it.

chownie 5y ago

My understanding from the text was that McDonald's had to abide by sectoral pay regulations, so the they're paying the minimum wage but Denmark has a much finer grained approach to that minimum? I didn't read that they'd strike until a specific pay number was reached from that page, just that McDonald's had to operate under the same conditions as their same industry peers

mrweasel 5y ago
Exactly, they didn't just go straight to $22 an hour, they agreed to follow the deal made between their sector of industry and the unions for that sector. People seem to have the impression that the unions dictate the compensation and benefits, they do not. It's a negotiation between the companies and the unions, and the state is observes (unless negotiations fail). The Danish model allow for continuous adaptation of the compensation and benefits. The companies have just as much influence as the unions do. The model allows companies to avoid a minimum wage, which may not be beneficial to companies if a particular sector has a slowdown.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  It works much the same her in Norway too.
- manmal 5y ago
  That’s how it works in multiple other countries in the EU too, like Germany and Austria.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Finland is same. And it really makes some sense. Why should each individual employer negotiate individually with their workers, when both sides can pool together for more leverage. Also it removes some aspects of competition you don't need to worry that you have to pay more for your labour than the other burger chains.
jollybean 5y ago
Yes, but my point is that is not the interesting part. The interesting part is where the $22 is arrived at from.