3 ms·

I think that the difference here is a matter of principles. A lot of people view corporations in a justifiably negative light (very few people say that corpora

I think that the difference here is a matter of principles. A lot of people view corporations in a justifiably negative light (very few people say that corporations are an unalloyed good, and I have never heard anyone wish that they could work for an LLC). But a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly and for the most part companies do make money (when they fail to make money, they cease existing and the general consensus is 'good riddance'). A union on the other hand is chartered to advocate for the rights and needs of workers. The standards and expectations for a union are fundamentally different than for a corporation. It depends on the union, but a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no consequences for this failure. Given that Unions claim a democratic mandate to advocate for labor, people are justifiably upset when they see their union doing nothing to represent their interests.

pydry 5y ago
>But a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly and for the most part companies do make money (when they fail to make money, they cease existing They are supposed to serve a higher purpose than just make money. If you were being equivalently fair to unions you would say that their sole purpose is to take dues. >a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no consequences for this failure Yes, they do, they lose members.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Yes, they do, they lose members. And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If I say I don't want to work for my company any more they'd either say 'farewell' or even offer me money to stay. If you don't want to be part of a union or a strike, you better be prepared to be harassed and intimidated.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If it's a competition for who has managed the most extreme violence in relation to an industrial dispute in America the prize would go to the manager of a coal mine in west virginia who brought in a private air force to bomb strikers (battle of blair mountain). I somehow doubt youll find a union that has managed that level of unbridled violence. The most extreme violence isnt in defence of livelihoods, it's in the service of profit.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      That was in the 1920s - that's not something I'm legitimately worried about. But it is a routine occurrence to have picket lines in industrial disputes today, and to deliberately harass people who choose to go into work. In the coal mining strikes in the UK in the 80s it got to the point where union members literally killed a taxi driver for taking a worker past a picket line. Google aren't going to kill an Uber driver for taking me to work at Facebook instead.
      - pydry 5y ago
        Google would absolutely employ violence to defend its profits if it felt that its profits were seriously under threat and it thought violence was a viable tactic. It isnt. It's very far away from that. These things are a nuisance to them no more. The united fruit company paid for paramilitaries to assassinate strikers in Central America. This is a world away from dropping a brick on a taxi because your livelihood is under threat.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wmil 5y ago
  > Yes, they do, they lose members. But membership is mandatory if there is a union at that corp. A union is like a service they can't ever unsubscribe from without changing jobs. For government work especially, unions can start to take over management functions. So employees end up wanting a second union to protect them from abuses by their main union.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > But membership is mandatory if there is a union at that corp This is untrue in every state. In some states you have to pay dues even if your aren't a member, but closed shops aren't legal.
    - blululu 5y ago
      Technically untrue, but if you are required to pay union dues then membership is effectively mandatory. It depends on State Law here. Some states are "right to work" so people can opt out, but this effectively destroys the Union. The Wagner act does not allow multiple unions or compete/cooperate so the issue in the US is framed in pretty all/nothing terms.
dfxm12 5y ago
a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly We don't expect a corporation to abuse workers, even if it makes them money. when they fail to make money, they cease existing and the general consensus is 'good riddance' The history of bailouts would suggest otherwise.
- geodel 5y ago
  Well bailouts were called out a million times. And to think of it bailouts were about "oh what about these thousands of employees and community they lived instead of think of executives and their million dollar bonuses."

pydry 5y ago

>But a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly and for the most part companies do make money (when they fail to make money, they cease existing They are supposed to serve a higher purpose than just make money. If you were being equivalently fair to unions you would say that their sole purpose is to take dues. >a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no consequences for this failure Yes, they do, they lose members.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> Yes, they do, they lose members. And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If I say I don't want to work for my company any more they'd either say 'farewell' or even offer me money to stay. If you don't want to be part of a union or a strike, you better be prepared to be harassed and intimidated.
- pydry 5y ago
  >And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If it's a competition for who has managed the most extreme violence in relation to an industrial dispute in America the prize would go to the manager of a coal mine in west virginia who brought in a private air force to bomb strikers (battle of blair mountain). I somehow doubt youll find a union that has managed that level of unbridled violence. The most extreme violence isnt in defence of livelihoods, it's in the service of profit.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    That was in the 1920s - that's not something I'm legitimately worried about. But it is a routine occurrence to have picket lines in industrial disputes today, and to deliberately harass people who choose to go into work. In the coal mining strikes in the UK in the 80s it got to the point where union members literally killed a taxi driver for taking a worker past a picket line. Google aren't going to kill an Uber driver for taking me to work at Facebook instead.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Google would absolutely employ violence to defend its profits if it felt that its profits were seriously under threat and it thought violence was a viable tactic. It isnt. It's very far away from that. These things are a nuisance to them no more. The united fruit company paid for paramilitaries to assassinate strikers in Central America. This is a world away from dropping a brick on a taxi because your livelihood is under threat.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wmil 5y ago
> Yes, they do, they lose members. But membership is mandatory if there is a union at that corp. A union is like a service they can't ever unsubscribe from without changing jobs. For government work especially, unions can start to take over management functions. So employees end up wanting a second union to protect them from abuses by their main union.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > But membership is mandatory if there is a union at that corp This is untrue in every state. In some states you have to pay dues even if your aren't a member, but closed shops aren't legal.
  - blululu 5y ago
    Technically untrue, but if you are required to pay union dues then membership is effectively mandatory. It depends on State Law here. Some states are "right to work" so people can opt out, but this effectively destroys the Union. The Wagner act does not allow multiple unions or compete/cooperate so the issue in the US is framed in pretty all/nothing terms.

dfxm12 5y ago

a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly We don't expect a corporation to abuse workers, even if it makes them money. when they fail to make money, they cease existing and the general consensus is 'good riddance' The history of bailouts would suggest otherwise.

geodel 5y ago
Well bailouts were called out a million times. And to think of it bailouts were about "oh what about these thousands of employees and community they lived instead of think of executives and their million dollar bonuses."