7 ms·

Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management coul

Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.

anamax 5y ago
You write "compensated to 'opt-out'" like it's a bad thing. Unions are a tool, not a goal.
dgrin91 5y ago
> compensated to “opt-out”. Didn't you basically just describe the goal of a union? Better conditions for their workers?
- eru 5y ago
  Well, the theory is that management will make the conditions worse after breaking up the union. Very similar to the myth of 'predatory pricing'.
kortilla 5y ago
That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.
- morgante 5y ago
  Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?
    - morgante 5y ago
      The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
      - djrobstep 5y ago
        Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?
        limelight 5y ago
        I wouldn't consider shareholders good or bad, but neutral. The revenue you send them today is compensation for the capital they provided to get the business to where it is today (or, in many cases, liquidity for earlier employees who built the company). They provided meaningful value to secure that revenue stream. Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.
        djrobstep 5y ago
        It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other?
        morgante 5y ago
        > It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. At best, unions provide a redistributive function (transferring income from high-performing to low-performing employees). In practice, their net benefit to employees is negative. > The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other? The shareholders own the company. They bought it from the original founders and employees who built it. Without shareholders, there would be no company. Unions are just mafia bosses who showed up later demanding to be paid. They were never involved in value creation.
  - afavour 5y ago
    Huh? If there’s no union you’re forced to accept whatever contract the company boss decides upon. At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. In either situation if you don’t like the end result you can just quit.
    - morgante 5y ago
      Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome. > At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.
      - approxim8ion 5y ago
        At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.
        eru 5y ago
        Careful. You are fighting a strawman here. First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'. Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences. > [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves. Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation. Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.
- wyager 5y ago
  It's difficult to think of a more textbook example of racketeering.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    Why is it racketeering when a union prevents me from working for the company without contributing to fees, but not when management prevents me from working for the company without contributing to shareholder profits?
- zorpner 5y ago
  The company can hire you. Your unionized coworkers can decline to work with you, or for the company, if they do so. Would you deny them that right?
  - morgante 5y ago
    No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.
    - zorpner 5y ago
      Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        I don't think the union contract should cover people who don't want it. If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?
        eru 5y ago
        Careful! If you keep going in that direction, you might speak out against minimum wage laws next.
        zorpner 5y ago
        It's a contract that the company has agreed to -- if they violate that contract, the consequences apply. Or should they be able to violate contracts negotiated between private parties?
- stefan_ 5y ago
  Who is going to tell him his work is paying for HR people that exist solely so the company can get rid of him when it wants to? Middle managers scheming to juggle his work for their own benefit? CEOs that collude with others to restrict his work mobility? A union is just a counterweight to executives. If you are not paying for the former, you are definitely paying for the latter.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  The company's management can prevent me from working for the company without contributing to shareholder profits - do you also think that is bad? If not, what's the difference?

anamax 5y ago

You write "compensated to 'opt-out'" like it's a bad thing. Unions are a tool, not a goal.

dgrin91 5y ago

> compensated to “opt-out”. Didn't you basically just describe the goal of a union? Better conditions for their workers?

eru 5y ago
Well, the theory is that management will make the conditions worse after breaking up the union. Very similar to the myth of 'predatory pricing'.

kortilla 5y ago

That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.

morgante 5y ago
Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?
  - morgante 5y ago
    The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?
      - limelight 5y ago
        I wouldn't consider shareholders good or bad, but neutral. The revenue you send them today is compensation for the capital they provided to get the business to where it is today (or, in many cases, liquidity for earlier employees who built the company). They provided meaningful value to secure that revenue stream. Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.
        djrobstep 5y ago
        It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other?
        morgante 5y ago
        > It does provide value to the business, but to the employees rather than the shareholders. At best, unions provide a redistributive function (transferring income from high-performing to low-performing employees). In practice, their net benefit to employees is negative. > The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other? The shareholders own the company. They bought it from the original founders and employees who built it. Without shareholders, there would be no company. Unions are just mafia bosses who showed up later demanding to be paid. They were never involved in value creation.
- afavour 5y ago
  Huh? If there’s no union you’re forced to accept whatever contract the company boss decides upon. At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. In either situation if you don’t like the end result you can just quit.
  - morgante 5y ago
    Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome. > At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.
    - approxim8ion 5y ago
      At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.
      - eru 5y ago
        Careful. You are fighting a strawman here. First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'. Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences. > [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves. Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation. Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.
wyager 5y ago
It's difficult to think of a more textbook example of racketeering.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  Why is it racketeering when a union prevents me from working for the company without contributing to fees, but not when management prevents me from working for the company without contributing to shareholder profits?
zorpner 5y ago
The company can hire you. Your unionized coworkers can decline to work with you, or for the company, if they do so. Would you deny them that right?
- morgante 5y ago
  No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.
  - zorpner 5y ago
    Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      I don't think the union contract should cover people who don't want it. If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?
      - eru 5y ago
        Careful! If you keep going in that direction, you might speak out against minimum wage laws next.
      - zorpner 5y ago
        It's a contract that the company has agreed to -- if they violate that contract, the consequences apply. Or should they be able to violate contracts negotiated between private parties?
stefan_ 5y ago
Who is going to tell him his work is paying for HR people that exist solely so the company can get rid of him when it wants to? Middle managers scheming to juggle his work for their own benefit? CEOs that collude with others to restrict his work mobility? A union is just a counterweight to executives. If you are not paying for the former, you are definitely paying for the latter.
djrobstep 5y ago
The company's management can prevent me from working for the company without contributing to shareholder profits - do you also think that is bad? If not, what's the difference?