3 ms·

I mean, we don't have to guess, a third of US workers were union members in the 50s and 60s. You can look at the real history of private sector unions and see h

I mean, we don't have to guess, a third of US workers were union members in the 50s and 60s. You can look at the real history of private sector unions and see how they impacted society. I think it's clearly been positive, but it's tough to summarize in a comment. One easy example is the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would not have passed when it did without decades of union activism including massive strikes. Basically, I don't think the outcomes you're imagining are inevitable because we tried private sector unions for a very long time and those outcomes didn't happen. I understand why you're traumatized by police unions, but I can just as easily say I don't understand why people can't make the connection between the decline of union membership and the increase of income inequality and all its disastrous effects.

renewiltord 5y ago
Yeah, many of them were incredibly racist organizations focused on keeping black people from doing jobs. Easy when they cartelize labour and use violence when required. E.g. https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/charlie-walker-movie-san-francisco-oil-spill-16377938.php https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/charlie-walker-mov... Yeah they were fantastic for the majority because they allowed the majority to retain a tight grip on work. If your preference matrix prefers that racist workers get better gigs while other workers don’t get work at all, fine. That isn’t my preference matrix.
- burkaman 5y ago
  That's why I said it's tough to summarize. Obviously there were many negatives including racism, organized crime, corruption, etc. I do not believe that racism or corruption is an inevitable outcome of unions, just like I don't think the positive outcomes are inevitable.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    I think we’re on the same page as to the situation. You just believe that curation of the process and vigilance will ensure positive outcomes and I believe that that path is not anti-fragile and will eventually fail. Hope that’s accurate.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      Yeah, fair enough.
b9a2cab5 5y ago
Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. If the company needs to shed a bunch of people or switch business models or _hire different talent_ the union will resist, because their job is to maximize the number and pay of jobs for their members. The prime example of this being a problem right now is longshoremen in LA and Long Beach resisting automation. The other issue with co-op like structures is that they don't provide enough upside for company founders and early employees. Founders need the chance to make big money or they won't take big risks (see: Europe for an example of this). One of the reasons the NYC rideshare co-op is failing is because no software engineer wants to work at some rando startup for a fraction of what they could make at Uber & Lyft. Unions work when the work is highly commoditized and technological improvement is stagnant. I can't say that's the case for a huge percentage of jobs today.
- burkaman 5y ago
  > Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. They are not aligned with those of management. They are aligned with those of the company almost by definition if the union is big enough, because a company is its workforce. If the CEO says the company wants to do something and 80% of the employees disagree, then in fact the CEO wants to do something and the company does not. It's obviously not hard to find examples of unions causing negative impacts on society, just like it's not hard to find the same for corporate executives. The idea is to find the right balance. Is the the threat of inefficiency worse than the threat of worker abuse and inequality? At some point yes it will be, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that point yet.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    The company is not its workforce. Every individual in the company would like more money for less work, but that's not in the company's best interest. If the company goes under because it's paying too much for too little, the employees can get new jobs elsewhere, whereas any money reinvested into the company will provide virtually no direct benefit to any individual employee. A company's interests can be aligned with employees, indeed typically you want good employee retention and high morale which can only come from creating a company where people want to work, but companies do not exist to maximize employment and employee compensation.

renewiltord 5y ago

Yeah, many of them were incredibly racist organizations focused on keeping black people from doing jobs. Easy when they cartelize labour and use violence when required. E.g. https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/charlie-walker-movie-san-francisco-oil-spill-16377938.php https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/charlie-walker-mov... Yeah they were fantastic for the majority because they allowed the majority to retain a tight grip on work. If your preference matrix prefers that racist workers get better gigs while other workers don’t get work at all, fine. That isn’t my preference matrix.

burkaman 5y ago
That's why I said it's tough to summarize. Obviously there were many negatives including racism, organized crime, corruption, etc. I do not believe that racism or corruption is an inevitable outcome of unions, just like I don't think the positive outcomes are inevitable.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  I think we’re on the same page as to the situation. You just believe that curation of the process and vigilance will ensure positive outcomes and I believe that that path is not anti-fragile and will eventually fail. Hope that’s accurate.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Yeah, fair enough.

b9a2cab5 5y ago

Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. If the company needs to shed a bunch of people or switch business models or _hire different talent_ the union will resist, because their job is to maximize the number and pay of jobs for their members. The prime example of this being a problem right now is longshoremen in LA and Long Beach resisting automation. The other issue with co-op like structures is that they don't provide enough upside for company founders and early employees. Founders need the chance to make big money or they won't take big risks (see: Europe for an example of this). One of the reasons the NYC rideshare co-op is failing is because no software engineer wants to work at some rando startup for a fraction of what they could make at Uber & Lyft. Unions work when the work is highly commoditized and technological improvement is stagnant. I can't say that's the case for a huge percentage of jobs today.

burkaman 5y ago
> Unions' interests are not aligned with those of the company. They are not aligned with those of management. They are aligned with those of the company almost by definition if the union is big enough, because a company is its workforce. If the CEO says the company wants to do something and 80% of the employees disagree, then in fact the CEO wants to do something and the company does not. It's obviously not hard to find examples of unions causing negative impacts on society, just like it's not hard to find the same for corporate executives. The idea is to find the right balance. Is the the threat of inefficiency worse than the threat of worker abuse and inequality? At some point yes it will be, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that point yet.
- jjk166 5y ago
  The company is not its workforce. Every individual in the company would like more money for less work, but that's not in the company's best interest. If the company goes under because it's paying too much for too little, the employees can get new jobs elsewhere, whereas any money reinvested into the company will provide virtually no direct benefit to any individual employee. A company's interests can be aligned with employees, indeed typically you want good employee retention and high morale which can only come from creating a company where people want to work, but companies do not exist to maximize employment and employee compensation.