6 ms·

When I was very young I worked a tough job that had a mandatory union and it was quite terrible / weak. Working conditions were pretty bad, physical labor, etc

When I was very young I worked a tough job that had a mandatory union and it was quite terrible / weak. Working conditions were pretty bad, physical labor, etc. But it was not until I worked a job with no union that I realized every element of that job that didn't suck was due to the union. For example we had supervisors but they didn't follow you around and micromanage you. You were just expected to do your job. If you didn't you would be reprimanded of course, but no one was on your case at all. Supervisors had to show you a base level of respect: there were rules on that stuff. There were a lot of rules, actually, and even though the union didn't have a lot of power I'm pretty sure every single positive one, anything that gave employees even a sliver of autonomy and power, were things that the union fought for and got for us. I still was kind of anti-union after that. "Anti Union" is the wrong phrasing, it was more... I was very suspicious of their structure, their own profit motive(s) etc. People working for the union had it so much better than the people actually doing the work, and we were the ones paying for and funding it, right? That aspect of it I never got over, but I now think that it may have been the wrong point of view. I have recently come around full swing and am 100% pro union. And it is stories like this. Starbucks, Google, Amazon, these companies will spend millions to fight unions. This is prima facie evidence to me that unions benefit workers. These companies all talk the same talk: "we believe companies work best when team members can work directly with the company with no union in the way". As though Amazon warehouse workers have some kind of communication path to improve their working conditions when they are being managed and fired by an AI. What a buncha fkn BS. Things cost. Good things cost money. You are paying for someone to fight for your interests and not the company's interest. Maybe that is worth paying for. And if you don't pay money to a union to fight you pay with your physical health, your safety, your respect, your mental health. If you work for Amazon you pay with your life when they threaten to fire you if you try to leave in order to hide from a hurricane. We should all be in unions.

joebob42 5y ago
Just a note: I agree that spending millions fighting unions is strong evidence unions are bad for the company. It's not necessarily obvious this means unions are good for the employees.
- e40 5y ago
  It really bothers me that we've all accepted (not you or me specifically, but every time I see unions discussed it's the subtext) that we have two choices: no union or a shitty union. Why can't we work for a union that is good? If the answer is that humans are involved and it'll never be possible, then that could be applied to anything and is an absurd answer. This is not a strawman, I've heard that argument many times.
  - mleonhard 5y ago
    In USA, unions mostly represent blue-collar workers who tend to elect low-quality union leaders. A union at Google could end up with better leaders than the company itself.
    - philistine 5y ago
      This is a very wise answer.
    - saltminer 5y ago
      There's also another factor at play: in many states, the power of unions is quite weak. E.g. public-sector employees in NC cannot collectively bargain, which is why they're able to get away with paying teachers horrendous wages. Want to strike? Go on ahead, pay your sub for the day (or your contract will not be renewed) and go down to Raleigh, where the legislature will recess and most of them will literally just go home and ignore all the people with picket signs. It's a lot harder to get behind unions when they can't really be very strong.
    - truffdog 5y ago
      Blue collar unions probably don't have bad unions because they are uneducated, and you probably won't love a programmer's union because the leaders have postdocs. For white collar equivalents with bad unions, consider the teachers unions, and the constant fight over tenure and charter schools. Or the American Medical Association and their successful constriction of supply in the world's most overpriced Healthcare environment.
    - 5y ago
teddyh 5y ago
> Starbucks, Google, Amazon, these companies will spend millions to fight unions. This is prima facie evidence to me that unions benefit workers. Technically, that does not follow. What can be inferred is that companies believe that unions will cost the company money, but this does not necessarily mean that the employees will get any of that money. One could imagine a theoretical evil union which takes all the extracted profit from the company and gives it to themselves, and not to the employees.
- babycake 5y ago
  We can infer from labor history itself. All of our benefits today came from workers who lost their lives in fighting for better working conditions. But even if we don't look at history, the fact that all companies worldwide consistently unite together against this one issue (unions), as well as spending millions to counter it, should make any employee suspect. In contrast to millions of dollars lost due to bad CEO leadership or fraud, employee attrition/retraining, managers favoring nepotism, etc. Curious how they don't unite to fix that stuff when it plagues all companies just as hard.
raxxorrax 5y ago
The quality of a union heavily depends on its leadership, which must be accountable to union members. But yes, a carefully conceived structure would make that possible. Problem is when said leadership starts to advertise particular interests instead of focusing on compensation and safety (work place safety, not neurosis compensation). A young union cannot really focus on much more because it is unlikely that it will get the support it needs initially.
- Viccro 5y ago
  ...which must be accountable to fellow union members... Union members comprise union leadership!

joebob42 5y ago

Just a note: I agree that spending millions fighting unions is strong evidence unions are bad for the company. It's not necessarily obvious this means unions are good for the employees.

e40 5y ago
It really bothers me that we've all accepted (not you or me specifically, but every time I see unions discussed it's the subtext) that we have two choices: no union or a shitty union. Why can't we work for a union that is good? If the answer is that humans are involved and it'll never be possible, then that could be applied to anything and is an absurd answer. This is not a strawman, I've heard that argument many times.
- mleonhard 5y ago
  In USA, unions mostly represent blue-collar workers who tend to elect low-quality union leaders. A union at Google could end up with better leaders than the company itself.
  - philistine 5y ago
    This is a very wise answer.
  - saltminer 5y ago
    There's also another factor at play: in many states, the power of unions is quite weak. E.g. public-sector employees in NC cannot collectively bargain, which is why they're able to get away with paying teachers horrendous wages. Want to strike? Go on ahead, pay your sub for the day (or your contract will not be renewed) and go down to Raleigh, where the legislature will recess and most of them will literally just go home and ignore all the people with picket signs. It's a lot harder to get behind unions when they can't really be very strong.
  - truffdog 5y ago
    Blue collar unions probably don't have bad unions because they are uneducated, and you probably won't love a programmer's union because the leaders have postdocs. For white collar equivalents with bad unions, consider the teachers unions, and the constant fight over tenure and charter schools. Or the American Medical Association and their successful constriction of supply in the world's most overpriced Healthcare environment.
  - 5y ago

teddyh 5y ago

> Starbucks, Google, Amazon, these companies will spend millions to fight unions. This is prima facie evidence to me that unions benefit workers. Technically, that does not follow. What can be inferred is that companies believe that unions will cost the company money, but this does not necessarily mean that the employees will get any of that money. One could imagine a theoretical evil union which takes all the extracted profit from the company and gives it to themselves, and not to the employees.

babycake 5y ago
We can infer from labor history itself. All of our benefits today came from workers who lost their lives in fighting for better working conditions. But even if we don't look at history, the fact that all companies worldwide consistently unite together against this one issue (unions), as well as spending millions to counter it, should make any employee suspect. In contrast to millions of dollars lost due to bad CEO leadership or fraud, employee attrition/retraining, managers favoring nepotism, etc. Curious how they don't unite to fix that stuff when it plagues all companies just as hard.

raxxorrax 5y ago

The quality of a union heavily depends on its leadership, which must be accountable to union members. But yes, a carefully conceived structure would make that possible. Problem is when said leadership starts to advertise particular interests instead of focusing on compensation and safety (work place safety, not neurosis compensation). A young union cannot really focus on much more because it is unlikely that it will get the support it needs initially.

Viccro 5y ago
...which must be accountable to fellow union members... Union members comprise union leadership!