6 ms·

"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 ind

"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.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Except that we are not talking about a political club. We are not talking about an external group that imposes itself on the workers. Unions are formed by workers, the leaders are elected by the workers and drawn from the workforce, and unions serve the purpose of negotiating employment terms for the workers. If you would rather have an argument about political clubs go find a forum where it is not wildly off-topic...
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Unions are inherently political. They do things like fund politicians - maybe politicians with views you find offensive. And they obviously offer to represent your interests but really of course they end up representing their own and powerful people’s.
    - mabub24 5y ago
      You've kind of shifted the debate towards over whether any large institution or organization should be allowed to finance or donate or "fund" political campaigns to the degree that they can at present in the US. I would say they shouldn't be able to. Many other liberal democracies do not allow it. While I support unions in many cases, I would say that many of the arguments against a decision like the one made in Citizens United in favor of unfettered amounts apply to corporations and unions equally. I found Justice Stevens dissenting opinion extremely convincing compared to the concurring and majority opinion. He raised things like: they do not vote, they "survive" the lifespan of the normal human, they disrupt the spirit of democracy and the conceptual underpinnings of liberal democracy, and they manipulate speech into a concept of power and wealth rather than expression and communication. So, obviously they're political, but in the sense that they are politically active. And so are corporations. Take away the ability to fund, donate to, or finance, politicians and political campaigns from corporations and unions, and you still end up with a situation where unions collectively protect workers from arbitrary change.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      ...and all of that is true, to a much greater extent, of the corporations whose workers unions represent. Do you think Amazon warehouse workers agree with the views of every politician whose campaign received a contribution from Amazon? I am a big fan of taking money out of politics and banning campaign contributions from unions, corporations, PACs, lobbying firms, and basically any entity that is not an individual citizen. Unfortunately, until that happens, unions must engage with political campaigns to counter corporate political engagement. Corporations push for politicians to pass union-busting laws and to block pro-union laws; unions push for politicians to block such union-busting and to pass pro-union laws. As for your other comment, I have to wonder whose interests you think unions are representing when they actually sit down to negotiate pay, benefits, work rules, etc. Do you think that when a union rep says, "No, we need a healthcare plan that has a lower deductible," they are doing so because some politician somewhere benefits from it? Do you think "power people" tell a union that, actually, employees should have their wages adjusted according to both their seniority and the local cost of living? The day-to-day business of a union is its workers' interest, just like the day-to-day business of a corporation is its shareholders' interest, regardless of campaign contributions or support for politicians. If the workers feel that their interests are poorly represented, they can vote for different union leaders; likewise, when shareholders feel that their interests are poorly represented they can elect a different board of directors.
skeeter2020 5y ago
Don't B-Corps both (a) show working towards improvement without a union and (b) by their definition consider far more than profit maximization in their core mandate? You didn't really refute their final point about mandatory union affiliation other than "but that would make it harder for the union". Their point about personal choice stands (and is valid).
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Don't B-Corps work for the "public benefit?" That does not necessarily align with the needs or interests of the workers and the profit motive still exists. It is not hard to imagine a B-Corp working for the public interest while still paying its workers too little, offering limited benefits, or even engaging in various abuses of its workforce. As to the point about mandatory union affiliation, as I said the entire purpose of a union is to allow workers to negotiate the terms of their employment on an equal footing with their company. For the reasons I gave mandatory union membership is necessary; personal choice serves to divide the workers and gives the company an advantage in every negotiation. To put it another way, managers do not have any "personal choice" on their side of the negotiation -- the company negotiates as a collective and the job of individual managers is to negotiate on behalf and for the benefit of the company. So if the workers exercise a "personal choice" to negotiate individually or collectively, the company, which always negotiates as a collective, will have an advantage in every negotiation. So I suppose it really comes down to whether or not you think it is a problem for a company to have a huge advantage over its workers when negotiating the terms of employment. I personally think it is a problem to give such a large advantage to employers, but I can grant that it is a matter of personal values and worldview, so maybe your values are different. If you do assert that there is no particular problem with companies having such a large advantage, then to be intellectually honest you should not speak of a "market" for employment, because markets do not function effectively when they are so extremely one-sided (see e.g. the failure of the "market" for home ISP service).

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.

betterunix2 5y ago
Except that we are not talking about a political club. We are not talking about an external group that imposes itself on the workers. Unions are formed by workers, the leaders are elected by the workers and drawn from the workforce, and unions serve the purpose of negotiating employment terms for the workers. If you would rather have an argument about political clubs go find a forum where it is not wildly off-topic...
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Unions are inherently political. They do things like fund politicians - maybe politicians with views you find offensive. And they obviously offer to represent your interests but really of course they end up representing their own and powerful people’s.
  - mabub24 5y ago
    You've kind of shifted the debate towards over whether any large institution or organization should be allowed to finance or donate or "fund" political campaigns to the degree that they can at present in the US. I would say they shouldn't be able to. Many other liberal democracies do not allow it. While I support unions in many cases, I would say that many of the arguments against a decision like the one made in Citizens United in favor of unfettered amounts apply to corporations and unions equally. I found Justice Stevens dissenting opinion extremely convincing compared to the concurring and majority opinion. He raised things like: they do not vote, they "survive" the lifespan of the normal human, they disrupt the spirit of democracy and the conceptual underpinnings of liberal democracy, and they manipulate speech into a concept of power and wealth rather than expression and communication. So, obviously they're political, but in the sense that they are politically active. And so are corporations. Take away the ability to fund, donate to, or finance, politicians and political campaigns from corporations and unions, and you still end up with a situation where unions collectively protect workers from arbitrary change.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    ...and all of that is true, to a much greater extent, of the corporations whose workers unions represent. Do you think Amazon warehouse workers agree with the views of every politician whose campaign received a contribution from Amazon? I am a big fan of taking money out of politics and banning campaign contributions from unions, corporations, PACs, lobbying firms, and basically any entity that is not an individual citizen. Unfortunately, until that happens, unions must engage with political campaigns to counter corporate political engagement. Corporations push for politicians to pass union-busting laws and to block pro-union laws; unions push for politicians to block such union-busting and to pass pro-union laws. As for your other comment, I have to wonder whose interests you think unions are representing when they actually sit down to negotiate pay, benefits, work rules, etc. Do you think that when a union rep says, "No, we need a healthcare plan that has a lower deductible," they are doing so because some politician somewhere benefits from it? Do you think "power people" tell a union that, actually, employees should have their wages adjusted according to both their seniority and the local cost of living? The day-to-day business of a union is its workers' interest, just like the day-to-day business of a corporation is its shareholders' interest, regardless of campaign contributions or support for politicians. If the workers feel that their interests are poorly represented, they can vote for different union leaders; likewise, when shareholders feel that their interests are poorly represented they can elect a different board of directors.

skeeter2020 5y ago

Don't B-Corps both (a) show working towards improvement without a union and (b) by their definition consider far more than profit maximization in their core mandate? You didn't really refute their final point about mandatory union affiliation other than "but that would make it harder for the union". Their point about personal choice stands (and is valid).

betterunix2 5y ago
Don't B-Corps work for the "public benefit?" That does not necessarily align with the needs or interests of the workers and the profit motive still exists. It is not hard to imagine a B-Corp working for the public interest while still paying its workers too little, offering limited benefits, or even engaging in various abuses of its workforce. As to the point about mandatory union affiliation, as I said the entire purpose of a union is to allow workers to negotiate the terms of their employment on an equal footing with their company. For the reasons I gave mandatory union membership is necessary; personal choice serves to divide the workers and gives the company an advantage in every negotiation. To put it another way, managers do not have any "personal choice" on their side of the negotiation -- the company negotiates as a collective and the job of individual managers is to negotiate on behalf and for the benefit of the company. So if the workers exercise a "personal choice" to negotiate individually or collectively, the company, which always negotiates as a collective, will have an advantage in every negotiation. So I suppose it really comes down to whether or not you think it is a problem for a company to have a huge advantage over its workers when negotiating the terms of employment. I personally think it is a problem to give such a large advantage to employers, but I can grant that it is a matter of personal values and worldview, so maybe your values are different. If you do assert that there is no particular problem with companies having such a large advantage, then to be intellectually honest you should not speak of a "market" for employment, because markets do not function effectively when they are so extremely one-sided (see e.g. the failure of the "market" for home ISP service).