5 ms·

On a macro level, a US union is much more expensive per member than a EU union because members/companies have to front the cost of healthcare (as opposed to cou

On a macro level, a US union is much more expensive per member than a EU union because members/companies have to front the cost of healthcare (as opposed to countries with universal healthcare). On a micro level, traditional US unions have huge pension funds that they have won from employers and promised to existing members, and so they can be very restrictive on membership qualifications.

rat87 5y ago
I think a more accurate point would be that employers force new employees to get worse benifits to undermine the union
whimsicalism 5y ago
Hm, in my experience, even in a union context, healthcare was supplied by the employer, it was just negotiated in the contract. I'm not sure why that would make a US union much more expensive. Typically, you don't really get unions with dues unless they've managed to get a contract with a wage increase that covers the dues.
- legitster 5y ago
  But if you are paying your union $25 a month to argue on your behalf, that money would go further if healthcare wasn't one of the things they had to negotiate.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    TBH, the additional overhead from also negotiating healthcare seems like a pretty marginal reason to explain the state of unions in the US today.
- mjmahone17 5y ago
  A union is much less likely to allow a company to use the cheapest health plan possible. So their purview is larger, as they need to ensure their members have access to basic benefits other countries provide “as right” regardless of union membership. This means the cost, to the company, of using union labor is even higher, but also that more of the union’s money and energy is spent dealing with healthcare as opposed to ensuring safe workspaces or wage sharing or PTO or other labor concessions.
tshaddox 5y ago
I'm still not seeing what actually causes the US unions to shrink. The per-employee healthcare costs exist, of course, but that's a problem for companies without unions too.

rat87 5y ago

I think a more accurate point would be that employers force new employees to get worse benifits to undermine the union

whimsicalism 5y ago

Hm, in my experience, even in a union context, healthcare was supplied by the employer, it was just negotiated in the contract. I'm not sure why that would make a US union much more expensive. Typically, you don't really get unions with dues unless they've managed to get a contract with a wage increase that covers the dues.

legitster 5y ago
But if you are paying your union $25 a month to argue on your behalf, that money would go further if healthcare wasn't one of the things they had to negotiate.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  TBH, the additional overhead from also negotiating healthcare seems like a pretty marginal reason to explain the state of unions in the US today.
mjmahone17 5y ago
A union is much less likely to allow a company to use the cheapest health plan possible. So their purview is larger, as they need to ensure their members have access to basic benefits other countries provide “as right” regardless of union membership. This means the cost, to the company, of using union labor is even higher, but also that more of the union’s money and energy is spent dealing with healthcare as opposed to ensuring safe workspaces or wage sharing or PTO or other labor concessions.

tshaddox 5y ago

I'm still not seeing what actually causes the US unions to shrink. The per-employee healthcare costs exist, of course, but that's a problem for companies without unions too.