5 ms·

That a union can lead to negative outcomes is not an argument in favor of no-unions, I think, it's an argument that that union should be improved. The basic gi

That a union can lead to negative outcomes is not an argument in favor of no-unions, I think, it's an argument that that union should be improved. The basic gist of unions (or "collectives" or co-ops), that they offer employees and workers leverage and collective bargaining power to counteract arbitrary changes, still stands as necessary. I also have experience with public sector unions, and though management might dislike them, I know very very few employees who would choose to be non-unionized instead. It's literally giving yourself up to the whims of your employer for no gain. > I get that corporate=bad, but do we want them to become more poorly run and inefficient than they are now? Do we want them to succeed at the cost of basic human dignity, or by dragging people into shitty working conditions? "inefficient" for whom? That human dignity should come at the expense of corporate profits is, I think, always a grotesque position to hold. We can mitigate that out by understanding how profit can co-exist with safe and good working conditions for everyone.

throwawaysea 5y ago
> That a union can lead to negative outcomes is not an argument in favor of no-unions, I think, it's an argument that that union should be improved. Can't the same be said about companies that aren't non-unionized? > It's literally giving yourself up to the whims of your employer for no gain. You could just as well say you are giving yourself up to the whims of the union leadership, which is just a parallel management structure. Sure they are supposed to represent your interests, but they're also supposed to balance that against the interests of the company and what is practically possible. So is there really much of a difference? I feel like the bigger problem is the exclusivity. Anytime there is only one option and competition disappears (whether for an employer or for a union), the incentives get corrupted. People shouldn't have to join a particular union. They should have the right to optionally do so, but being obligated means there's no competition incentive.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > You could just as well say you are giving yourself up to the whims of the union leadership, which is just a parallel management structure. Sure they are supposed to represent your interests, but they're also supposed to balance that against the interests of the company and what is practically possible. So is there really much of a difference? There's a difference: they are elected by the workers.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  I have a vote if I'm in a union. I don't have a vote with my employer except to leave, and the process of finding a new job with a new employer is very long, painful, and uncertain.
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    If you're skilled and valuable it's also really painful and uncertain for your employer; that's your "vote"
    - mabub24 5y ago
      You have to be careful with this line of reasoning. In the absence of a social safety net, being "not skilled" or "not valuable" from the perspective of an employer easily becomes being not valuable as a person, they "deserve" what happens to them because they are at fault. When your employer is your source of healthcare, retirement, and livelihood, the idea that it can arbitrarily control the basis of your health and dignity is grotesque. The line of reasoning seems fine when you are "skilled and valuable" from the perspective of your employer, but you might not be seen that way. Insisting that someone pays some price for that beyond simply not ending up wealthy is needlessly cruel. Despite our focus on it, there is more to life than being subservient to profit.
      - Xylakant 5y ago
        I know people that are skilled and valuable, but they still don't have the savings to fund their life for an extended period of time. And since they live in a country that doesn't pay reasonable unemployment money, they can only switch jobs when the jobs line up perfectly. Saying "this sucks, I quit" is not an option for them. They have family that relies on them. The employer nearly always has the better negotiation position.
    - KittenInABox 5y ago
      When I leave a company the company loses out on a cog in their wheel. When a company leaves me, they also take from me a way to access healthcare, which is life-threatening given my medical profile. It's not really the same.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  "Can't the same be said about companies that aren't non-unionized?" No, for two reasons. First, a company always has far greater negotiating power than an individual worker. Second, the company's incentive is to spend as little money on workers as they can get away with, in order to maximize profits. As a result non-union jobs almost always pay less and offer fewer benefits than unionized jobs. So even if a company could be convinced that they should not ask warehouse workers to pee in a bottle instead of taking the time to go to the bathroom, workers still come out on the losing end when they do not have a union. "You could just as well say you are giving yourself up to the whims of the union leadership" Workers have a say in union leadership decisions -- at a minimum they elect their leaders, but in most cases there are other ways for people to be involved. So unless the workforce also represents a significant fraction of ownership of the company (very unlikely for any company of significant size) they will have far less say in management decisions than in union decisions. "People shouldn't have to join a particular union" That is standard union-busting propaganda. It sounds great to give people a choice but the reality is that it reduces union representation and gives management an advantage over the workers by keeping them divided (among other things, it makes a strike far less effective and far less of a threat). The reason unions demand that the entire workforce be part of the union is to ensure that the union can negotiate with the company on equal footing -- two big parties negotiating, not one big party dealing with many small parties.
  - Grimm1 5y ago
    As an alternative place workers on the board. Have them be elected by the workers. A lot of places in Europe apparently do this. There's your non union workers representation and brings parity to negotiating power as well.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    If you have to force people to join your political club, then you have no right being a political club, do you? Unions are just another group of people trying to take the little bit of power workers have, to use it for their own ends.
    - 5y ago
- GlobalFrog 5y ago
  I would go even further:there should be a free market of unions for workers and employees to choose from. If you believe that the virtues of markets are absolute, then having complete freedom for unions should be the norm: they would autoregulate themselves and be beneficials for the workers, the companies and the society. I genuinely believe that if you are against unions, you are more communist than capitalist.
  - owisd 5y ago
    There can never be a true free market for unions because there’s such a big network effect bonus from everyone in your company/industry being in the same union.
    - smegger001 5y ago
      but many large companies have too deal with multiple Unions anyway. a metal mill for example will have to deal with the teamsters for their truck drivers, united steel worker for anyone working the floor, Service Employees International Union for security guards and janitor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for the electricians the service any of the electrical equipment, and any of a number of unions for the office staff.
mercutio2 5y ago
Unions are really, really different from collectives, or worker co-ops. They have in common an implication that capital should not be the sole deciding factor in organizational decision making, but it is really weird to see them lumped together. Kind of like saying jet engines (or bears, humans, or amphibians) all depend on breathing oxygen!
- mabub24 5y ago
  I only lumped them together because in America all forms of worker organization outside of the dominant system of employee subservience is deemed suspect in a hilariously uniform way. Farmers co-ops, for instance, have been described as "socialist," or "anti-competitive," or "inefficient" or "rent seeking" in the same way that unions have been. But I do agree, for the sake of specificity, they should be considered separate.
  - mercutio2 5y ago
    Fair enough! I missed that you were implying it's weird to collapse those together, but American's do anyway. In which case, yeah, I see your point.

throwawaysea 5y ago

> That a union can lead to negative outcomes is not an argument in favor of no-unions, I think, it's an argument that that union should be improved. Can't the same be said about companies that aren't non-unionized? > It's literally giving yourself up to the whims of your employer for no gain. You could just as well say you are giving yourself up to the whims of the union leadership, which is just a parallel management structure. Sure they are supposed to represent your interests, but they're also supposed to balance that against the interests of the company and what is practically possible. So is there really much of a difference? I feel like the bigger problem is the exclusivity. Anytime there is only one option and competition disappears (whether for an employer or for a union), the incentives get corrupted. People shouldn't have to join a particular union. They should have the right to optionally do so, but being obligated means there's no competition incentive.

nextaccountic 5y ago
> You could just as well say you are giving yourself up to the whims of the union leadership, which is just a parallel management structure. Sure they are supposed to represent your interests, but they're also supposed to balance that against the interests of the company and what is practically possible. So is there really much of a difference? There's a difference: they are elected by the workers.
KittenInABox 5y ago
I have a vote if I'm in a union. I don't have a vote with my employer except to leave, and the process of finding a new job with a new employer is very long, painful, and uncertain.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  If you're skilled and valuable it's also really painful and uncertain for your employer; that's your "vote"
  - mabub24 5y ago
    You have to be careful with this line of reasoning. In the absence of a social safety net, being "not skilled" or "not valuable" from the perspective of an employer easily becomes being not valuable as a person, they "deserve" what happens to them because they are at fault. When your employer is your source of healthcare, retirement, and livelihood, the idea that it can arbitrarily control the basis of your health and dignity is grotesque. The line of reasoning seems fine when you are "skilled and valuable" from the perspective of your employer, but you might not be seen that way. Insisting that someone pays some price for that beyond simply not ending up wealthy is needlessly cruel. Despite our focus on it, there is more to life than being subservient to profit.
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      I know people that are skilled and valuable, but they still don't have the savings to fund their life for an extended period of time. And since they live in a country that doesn't pay reasonable unemployment money, they can only switch jobs when the jobs line up perfectly. Saying "this sucks, I quit" is not an option for them. They have family that relies on them. The employer nearly always has the better negotiation position.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    When I leave a company the company loses out on a cog in their wheel. When a company leaves me, they also take from me a way to access healthcare, which is life-threatening given my medical profile. It's not really the same.
betterunix2 5y ago
"Can't the same be said about companies that aren't non-unionized?" No, for two reasons. First, a company always has far greater negotiating power than an individual worker. Second, the company's incentive is to spend as little money on workers as they can get away with, in order to maximize profits. As a result non-union jobs almost always pay less and offer fewer benefits than unionized jobs. So even if a company could be convinced that they should not ask warehouse workers to pee in a bottle instead of taking the time to go to the bathroom, workers still come out on the losing end when they do not have a union. "You could just as well say you are giving yourself up to the whims of the union leadership" Workers have a say in union leadership decisions -- at a minimum they elect their leaders, but in most cases there are other ways for people to be involved. So unless the workforce also represents a significant fraction of ownership of the company (very unlikely for any company of significant size) they will have far less say in management decisions than in union decisions. "People shouldn't have to join a particular union" That is standard union-busting propaganda. It sounds great to give people a choice but the reality is that it reduces union representation and gives management an advantage over the workers by keeping them divided (among other things, it makes a strike far less effective and far less of a threat). The reason unions demand that the entire workforce be part of the union is to ensure that the union can negotiate with the company on equal footing -- two big parties negotiating, not one big party dealing with many small parties.
- Grimm1 5y ago
  As an alternative place workers on the board. Have them be elected by the workers. A lot of places in Europe apparently do this. There's your non union workers representation and brings parity to negotiating power as well.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  If you have to force people to join your political club, then you have no right being a political club, do you? Unions are just another group of people trying to take the little bit of power workers have, to use it for their own ends.
  - 5y ago
GlobalFrog 5y ago
I would go even further:there should be a free market of unions for workers and employees to choose from. If you believe that the virtues of markets are absolute, then having complete freedom for unions should be the norm: they would autoregulate themselves and be beneficials for the workers, the companies and the society. I genuinely believe that if you are against unions, you are more communist than capitalist.
- owisd 5y ago
  There can never be a true free market for unions because there’s such a big network effect bonus from everyone in your company/industry being in the same union.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    but many large companies have too deal with multiple Unions anyway. a metal mill for example will have to deal with the teamsters for their truck drivers, united steel worker for anyone working the floor, Service Employees International Union for security guards and janitor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for the electricians the service any of the electrical equipment, and any of a number of unions for the office staff.

mercutio2 5y ago

Unions are really, really different from collectives, or worker co-ops. They have in common an implication that capital should not be the sole deciding factor in organizational decision making, but it is really weird to see them lumped together. Kind of like saying jet engines (or bears, humans, or amphibians) all depend on breathing oxygen!

mabub24 5y ago
I only lumped them together because in America all forms of worker organization outside of the dominant system of employee subservience is deemed suspect in a hilariously uniform way. Farmers co-ops, for instance, have been described as "socialist," or "anti-competitive," or "inefficient" or "rent seeking" in the same way that unions have been. But I do agree, for the sake of specificity, they should be considered separate.
- mercutio2 5y ago
  Fair enough! I missed that you were implying it's weird to collapse those together, but American's do anyway. In which case, yeah, I see your point.