3 ms·

> Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smaller geographic regions, and in gen

> Comparatively, European unions are much "weaker" - or maybe more accurately their purview is much smaller. They control smaller geographic regions, and in general, all of the heavy lifting for healthcare and pensions and worker rights is handled by the government. So the unions' focus is entirely on the collective bargaining piece. Also, unions tend to be more regulated - they can't carry so much bloat. All in all, everyone, companies included, have less reason to combat unions. I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany.

tharne 5y ago
> I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany. I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension). It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand. The union system is the U.S. is completely broken. I think unions in the U.S. should be both more widespread but much less powerful.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  >It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand. Do a search on governmentjobs.com for a job title you're familiar with and decide whether the unions have been successful at bleeding the government dry via high salaries. My anecdotal experience: you need to get to one level below Chief where I work to draw a salary close to a FAANG programmer, union pay tops out at 150k.
  - yibg 5y ago
    Why is the comparison against the highest paid jobs in the country? Shouldn't the comparison be against the median, or at least comparable jobs?
  - tharne 5y ago
    It's not the salaries that drive costs. It's mostly the long-term underfunded liabilities like pensions.
- johnny22 5y ago
  I dunno, that german situation sounds like the power isn't less or more, but rather in a different place. It's a place that actually can affect the how the company runs in a direct fashion.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  > I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension). You mean how shareholders and boardmembers are happy to completely dismantle perfectly functioning companies for a short term stock gain? I would argue workers generally have much more skin in the game than shareholders. Hardly any large shareholder is going to loose their livelihood if a company goes down, workers do.
- LesZedCB 5y ago
  man, if you think workers holding 35-50% of the company, wait until you learn about spanish worker co-ops! one employee = one share = one vote. no absentee owners.

tharne 5y ago

> I'm not sure I'd call unions legally-mandated to hold 33-50% (depending on company size) of the company's board seats "weaker". That's the situation in Germany. I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension). It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand. The union system is the U.S. is completely broken. I think unions in the U.S. should be both more widespread but much less powerful.

cool_dude85 5y ago
>It's even worse with the public unions. Since governments can theoretically keep raising taxes, there's no real limiting factor to how much the unions can demand. Do a search on governmentjobs.com for a job title you're familiar with and decide whether the unions have been successful at bleeding the government dry via high salaries. My anecdotal experience: you need to get to one level below Chief where I work to draw a salary close to a FAANG programmer, union pay tops out at 150k.
- yibg 5y ago
  Why is the comparison against the highest paid jobs in the country? Shouldn't the comparison be against the median, or at least comparable jobs?
- tharne 5y ago
  It's not the salaries that drive costs. It's mostly the long-term underfunded liabilities like pensions.
johnny22 5y ago
I dunno, that german situation sounds like the power isn't less or more, but rather in a different place. It's a place that actually can affect the how the company runs in a direct fashion.
cycomanic 5y ago
> I think that's a brilliant policy. It forces the unions to have some skin in the game. If you're on the board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's shareholders. In the U.S., most union bosses are happy to bleed a company dry provided the bleed is slow enough for them to make it to retirement (or death in the case of folks with a nice pension). You mean how shareholders and boardmembers are happy to completely dismantle perfectly functioning companies for a short term stock gain? I would argue workers generally have much more skin in the game than shareholders. Hardly any large shareholder is going to loose their livelihood if a company goes down, workers do.
LesZedCB 5y ago
man, if you think workers holding 35-50% of the company, wait until you learn about spanish worker co-ops! one employee = one share = one vote. no absentee owners.