6 ms·

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patter

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself, when left unchecked. It is about giving agency to the only force that can stand opposed to those destructive forces.

IanDrake 5y ago
[dead]
Devasta 5y ago
Its fascinating that for a profession that likes to think its all about understanding complex systems, we have so many that oppose unionization.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Look at what unions did to Detroit.
  - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
    Although a lot of the jobs from Detroit moved to Japan, a country with higher unionisation rates.
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    Look at what unions did to North Carolina. North Carolina is in a tie with South Carolina for lowest unionization in the US. The textile mills promised workers if they didn't unionize they would be OK. They didn't, yet the textile mills closed up and left the country any how. After years of low pat they are now low skilled workers with little savings in a town without industry. In Detroit, workers like Larry Page's grandfather battled during 1930s strike and wound up making a good living. He sent his son to college, and his son founded Google, holding aloft the improvised weapon his grandfather made in the 1930s UAW strike. The difference is when Detroit was a union town, it produced grandsons like Larry Page. Burlington, North Carolina was never a union town and it was working class then and nowadays over one third of those under 18 are under the property line. Also Detroit was in a union state when one-income families with the breadwinner working 40 hours a week owned a home, had a car (or two) working in a factory. Now Detroit is not in a union state, it is in a so-called right-to-work state.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Upvoted. I lived in Detroit and remember the news articles even from the early 2000’s with workers clocking in, then leaving and spending their shift drinking at strip clubs. Naturally the unions protected them. I remember the UAW contract then where existing new hires kept their equivalent to $50/hr total comp and all new hires after that got $16/hr. The union more than willing to throw new workers under the bus to keep the older workers happy. Worker solidarity be damned - “fuck you I got mine” American auto companies deserved to die. It was an absolute pit of rot and sloth. And I fully blame management too - they went along with it because it was the easy thing to do and ignoring union problems still let them meet their targets.
- atlantas 5y ago
  This is precisely why it's opposed by system thinkers. They understand that it doesn't make sense in this particular system.
thinkharderdev 5y ago
I wouldn't frame unions as a "fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself." Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. It's about the distribution of profits between capital and labor.
- acdha 5y ago
  > Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. This doesn’t make sense to me: a union member wants to be treated with respect even if making their working conditions worse would make more profit for the company. Similarly, a smart shareholder is willing to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term success — the idea that you’re supposed to screw everyone in service of the quarterly report is a [very successful] marketing campaign by the kind of MBAs who are hoping to profit before most shareholders realize what they’ve done to the company.
  - thinkharderdev 5y ago
    It probably depends on the specific tradeoff, but people accept poorer working conditions for higher wages all the time. See anyone working on an oil rig/fishing boat. Of course there are some margins where a union may focus on working conditions over wages but you can say the same about shareholders and managers. Anyway, I didn't mean my original comment to be anti-union. I just think that framing unionization as anti-business/profit is both counter-productive and substantively wrong. It's about giving workers a seat at the table as proper stakeholders. But once that happens, it's in everyones interest to make the underlying business as successful and profitable as possible.
    - acdha 5y ago
      Yes - my point was simply that “as successful” and “as profitable” intersect but don't overlap. There are many formerly successful businesses where they cut too deeply into staffing, future investment, etc. to maximize profits and I would generally expect a union member to be more interested in the former goal than the latter.
- 5y ago
a_humean 5y ago
A union does not necessarily play the role of migitation of negative externalities from a company's profit seeking activies. It still wants to maximum profits but with workers taking a fair share of such profits and under good work conditions. For example, unions that represent workers in dirty industries are very often resistent to regulation of their employer's activities despite the harm it can cause to others. Coal mining, steel processing, etc... They don't even necessarily lead to good value for money for consumers - for example they could use forms of worker accreditation to reduce the supply of workers to raise wages for existing workers and the increase the prices their employers can charge.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
The unions in slovenia opose the reduction of income tax for workers (after years of saying that they want to tax the capital more and work less). So yeah... unions in some places are politics first, their own pockets above that, and workers fifth.
- kiliantics 5y ago
  This very same argument could be made against liberal democracies, where there is a potential for similar dynamics of corruption to develop. However, almost no one would argue that liberal democracy isn't preferable to a system where one person or a small group can decide everything. Unions give you a vote and that is better than the alternative. Preventing a union from becoming corrupted is another problem and there is a wide spectrum of structures among unions, not all are as you depict.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    If most of the unions were good, and just a few corrupt, people would look differently at them... When the situation is reversed, with many corrupt ones, and only a few not, people stop supporting them.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  Sounds great - higher taxes are good.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
im just happy theres one more destructive force taking on the NYTimes. i hope i live long enough to see the company perish.
refurb 5y ago
Nope. Your statement acts like unions don’t involve trade offs - whatever your situation, unions will make it better. The truth is there are trade offs - recognition of merit replaced by recognition of seniority, protection of bad workers (and the toxic effect on work culture that has) and “lowest common denominator” bargaining. I’m certainly not saying unions don’t have a place, but workers should have a choice and in some cases, no union is actually the smart choice.
- specialist 5y ago
  > ...and in some cases, no union is actually the smart choice. Logic of Collective Action is a game theoretic framework to help make that choice. Very accessible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-Printing-Appendix/dp/0674537513 https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-Printing-Appe...
aaronsimpson 5y ago
Exactly. If you believe corporations have too much power today, one of the best tools in your toolbox as a "check" on their power is unions and collective bargaining. It's about having a counterbalance on that see-saw.
dbsmith83 5y ago
Please, just because something is not perfect doesn't meed you need a union. I can speak from actual experience about how shitty unions are. Can you say the same? If you want to be treated like a child and micromanaged so that the company can protect itself against the worst employees, then by all means, join a union. If you want to sacrifice your individual privileges to help prop up everyone who works less hard than you, then join a union. This lofty idea about opposing destructive forces is naive hogwash.
sershe 5y ago
Many don't feel like profit seeking motive generally has issues. Profit seeking is pretty much the thing that created the modern world. It just so happens that intent doesn't matter, results matter, and "ethical" intentions in economics pretty much always end badly. Unions are a particularly good example. The incentives in the way unions, especially major ones and/or public ones, are set up are the worst one can possibly imagine - they combine the monopolistic power of a giant corporation with incentives for fiefdom building/CYA/lack of incentives to improve of a government bureaucracy, plus the vetocratic incentives of the local NIMBYs. The practice of unions - from US auto industry, to teacher unions, to police unions - bears this out. I usually joke that I lost all respect for them when I learned that mafia were associating with the unions... all respect for mafia, I mean ;)
ehvatum 5y ago
Unionization is not a panacea for the ills of industrialization! Accountability is the concept you’re looking for, and unions can be a part of it just as easily as they can fight it.

IanDrake 5y ago

[dead]

Devasta 5y ago

Its fascinating that for a profession that likes to think its all about understanding complex systems, we have so many that oppose unionization.

treeman79 5y ago
Look at what unions did to Detroit.
- rowanajmarshall 5y ago
  Although a lot of the jobs from Detroit moved to Japan, a country with higher unionisation rates.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  Look at what unions did to North Carolina. North Carolina is in a tie with South Carolina for lowest unionization in the US. The textile mills promised workers if they didn't unionize they would be OK. They didn't, yet the textile mills closed up and left the country any how. After years of low pat they are now low skilled workers with little savings in a town without industry. In Detroit, workers like Larry Page's grandfather battled during 1930s strike and wound up making a good living. He sent his son to college, and his son founded Google, holding aloft the improvised weapon his grandfather made in the 1930s UAW strike. The difference is when Detroit was a union town, it produced grandsons like Larry Page. Burlington, North Carolina was never a union town and it was working class then and nowadays over one third of those under 18 are under the property line. Also Detroit was in a union state when one-income families with the breadwinner working 40 hours a week owned a home, had a car (or two) working in a factory. Now Detroit is not in a union state, it is in a so-called right-to-work state.
- refurb 5y ago
  Upvoted. I lived in Detroit and remember the news articles even from the early 2000’s with workers clocking in, then leaving and spending their shift drinking at strip clubs. Naturally the unions protected them. I remember the UAW contract then where existing new hires kept their equivalent to $50/hr total comp and all new hires after that got $16/hr. The union more than willing to throw new workers under the bus to keep the older workers happy. Worker solidarity be damned - “fuck you I got mine” American auto companies deserved to die. It was an absolute pit of rot and sloth. And I fully blame management too - they went along with it because it was the easy thing to do and ignoring union problems still let them meet their targets.
atlantas 5y ago
This is precisely why it's opposed by system thinkers. They understand that it doesn't make sense in this particular system.

thinkharderdev 5y ago

I wouldn't frame unions as a "fight against the destructive force of profit seeking itself." Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. It's about the distribution of profits between capital and labor.

acdha 5y ago
> Unions have every bit as much incentive to maximize profits as shareholders. This doesn’t make sense to me: a union member wants to be treated with respect even if making their working conditions worse would make more profit for the company. Similarly, a smart shareholder is willing to sacrifice short-term profits for long-term success — the idea that you’re supposed to screw everyone in service of the quarterly report is a [very successful] marketing campaign by the kind of MBAs who are hoping to profit before most shareholders realize what they’ve done to the company.
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  It probably depends on the specific tradeoff, but people accept poorer working conditions for higher wages all the time. See anyone working on an oil rig/fishing boat. Of course there are some margins where a union may focus on working conditions over wages but you can say the same about shareholders and managers. Anyway, I didn't mean my original comment to be anti-union. I just think that framing unionization as anti-business/profit is both counter-productive and substantively wrong. It's about giving workers a seat at the table as proper stakeholders. But once that happens, it's in everyones interest to make the underlying business as successful and profitable as possible.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Yes - my point was simply that “as successful” and “as profitable” intersect but don't overlap. There are many formerly successful businesses where they cut too deeply into staffing, future investment, etc. to maximize profits and I would generally expect a union member to be more interested in the former goal than the latter.
5y ago

a_humean 5y ago

A union does not necessarily play the role of migitation of negative externalities from a company's profit seeking activies. It still wants to maximum profits but with workers taking a fair share of such profits and under good work conditions. For example, unions that represent workers in dirty industries are very often resistent to regulation of their employer's activities despite the harm it can cause to others. Coal mining, steel processing, etc... They don't even necessarily lead to good value for money for consumers - for example they could use forms of worker accreditation to reduce the supply of workers to raise wages for existing workers and the increase the prices their employers can charge.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

The unions in slovenia opose the reduction of income tax for workers (after years of saying that they want to tax the capital more and work less). So yeah... unions in some places are politics first, their own pockets above that, and workers fifth.

kiliantics 5y ago
This very same argument could be made against liberal democracies, where there is a potential for similar dynamics of corruption to develop. However, almost no one would argue that liberal democracy isn't preferable to a system where one person or a small group can decide everything. Unions give you a vote and that is better than the alternative. Preventing a union from becoming corrupted is another problem and there is a wide spectrum of structures among unions, not all are as you depict.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  If most of the unions were good, and just a few corrupt, people would look differently at them... When the situation is reversed, with many corrupt ones, and only a few not, people stop supporting them.
djrobstep 5y ago
Sounds great - higher taxes are good.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

im just happy theres one more destructive force taking on the NYTimes. i hope i live long enough to see the company perish.

refurb 5y ago

Nope. Your statement acts like unions don’t involve trade offs - whatever your situation, unions will make it better. The truth is there are trade offs - recognition of merit replaced by recognition of seniority, protection of bad workers (and the toxic effect on work culture that has) and “lowest common denominator” bargaining. I’m certainly not saying unions don’t have a place, but workers should have a choice and in some cases, no union is actually the smart choice.

specialist 5y ago
> ...and in some cases, no union is actually the smart choice. Logic of Collective Action is a game theoretic framework to help make that choice. Very accessible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-Printing-Appendix/dp/0674537513 https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-Printing-Appe...

aaronsimpson 5y ago

Exactly. If you believe corporations have too much power today, one of the best tools in your toolbox as a "check" on their power is unions and collective bargaining. It's about having a counterbalance on that see-saw.

dbsmith83 5y ago

Please, just because something is not perfect doesn't meed you need a union. I can speak from actual experience about how shitty unions are. Can you say the same? If you want to be treated like a child and micromanaged so that the company can protect itself against the worst employees, then by all means, join a union. If you want to sacrifice your individual privileges to help prop up everyone who works less hard than you, then join a union. This lofty idea about opposing destructive forces is naive hogwash.

sershe 5y ago

Many don't feel like profit seeking motive generally has issues. Profit seeking is pretty much the thing that created the modern world. It just so happens that intent doesn't matter, results matter, and "ethical" intentions in economics pretty much always end badly. Unions are a particularly good example. The incentives in the way unions, especially major ones and/or public ones, are set up are the worst one can possibly imagine - they combine the monopolistic power of a giant corporation with incentives for fiefdom building/CYA/lack of incentives to improve of a government bureaucracy, plus the vetocratic incentives of the local NIMBYs. The practice of unions - from US auto industry, to teacher unions, to police unions - bears this out. I usually joke that I lost all respect for them when I learned that mafia were associating with the unions... all respect for mafia, I mean ;)

ehvatum 5y ago

Unionization is not a panacea for the ills of industrialization! Accountability is the concept you’re looking for, and unions can be a part of it just as easily as they can fight it.