3 ms·

Private corporations no longer offer pension (i.e. defined benefit) plans, so if employees want a pension it's going to be managed by a union, assuming they eve

by wahern 5y ago

Private corporations no longer offer pension (i.e. defined benefit) plans, so if employees want a pension it's going to be managed by a union, assuming they even have a union. That's probably for the better because these days (as opposed to 70 years ago), unions will be far more responsible managers of a pension fund than corporations, partly because of stricter government oversight. Some other countries have nationally managed pension funds. All the U.S. has is Social Security, a minimalist safety-net pension, and it's a heavy political lift just to maintain that, so I don't see things changing here. Also, don't unions literally sit on the board of corporations in countries like Germany? The notion that U.S. unions have too much power just seems like a typically American spin on the efficacy of unions--a bias veiled as a criticism. There's a host of reasons unions aren't more prevalent in the U.S., and they feed back onto each other, but if you had to boil them all down, IMO it's because our culture is rather hostile to unions, and it's always been that way. Even at their peak popularity in early- and mid-20th century, mainstream unions (as opposed to the infamous Wobblies, which never had significant membership) were remarkably conservative as compared to their counterparts in Europe, reflecting the general culture.

cool_dude85 5y ago
This is the exact distinction I'd like to make, in fact. The pension probably isn't managed by a union, it's managed by a board and management structure that will usually include both employees (who might be former employees, or members of one union, or a different union, or management) and representatives of the employer. The union most likely negotiates certain details of the pension in their contract, but actual management is not typically done by a union. Hence, they cannot easily use management of the pension fund (they don't manage it) against the employer, as the OP claims.
rocqua 5y ago
Unions have more hard power in the US. More control. Stuff like 'everyone who works has to be union'. Only X job can do Y. And Unions seek to increase their control as a defense against companies trying to take it back. European (dutch specifically) Unions have soft power. The only real control they have is declaring a strike. Everything else is bargaining for better terms of employment. The underlying trick is that entire sectors (willingly) have collective terms of employment.
- wahern 5y ago
  > Stuff like 'everyone who works has to be union' So-called closed shops haven't been legal in the U.S. for 75 years, and union shops for over 35 years. What you're probably thinking of are compulsory agency fees, which admittedly have escalated to as much as 1/3 to 2/3 of full union dues. Full union dues are typically 1%-3% of wages. (According to the Teamsters website, full monthly dues are 2.5 times hourly wages, which IIUC is 1.5%, assuming 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year.) But the Netherlands have mandatory Works Councils for any company with 50 or more employees, and the company is required to pay all the expenses, including legal and litigation expenses of the councils. So it's functionally the same thing, except the cost is hidden from the employee. Granted, the relationship between management and workers is much less hostile in Europe, so transactional costs are presumably substantially less. I wouldn't be surprised (but can't find numbers) if Works Councils budgets or comparable budgets for equivalent union representation are much less in Europe. But I also imagine the wage premium that union power in general provides European workers, whether workers are in a union or not, is substantially greater than in the U.S., so overall "costs" (i.e. surplus value shifting) incurred by corporations would be greater. Because management has always been so hostile to unions in the U.S., unions certainly have had to fight harder, and there's consequently more friction and acrimony. But it doesn't seem particularly fair to place that blame only on unions. IMO, management is much more culpable in that regard, but from a third-party observers' perspective one could easily simply chalk it up to American culture (and especially business and work culture) in general.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Indeed the Netherlands has mandatory works councils. I am even a part of one. It took me a while to realize that a works council is quite similar to a "one company union". Though normal works councils don't negotiate salaries (mine does because I fall outside of a collective employment agreement). As for costs I believe works councils don't have mandated budgets just some general 'reasonable to do the job' law. I actually should find out what budget my works council has. Though I expect it would be high, both because of salary negotiations, and just because the company wants a strong works council.
Ericson2314 5y ago
The 1930s 1940s upswing wasn't so conservative, but there were some purges with the cold war and then things took a self-defeating turn.

by wahern 5y ago

cool_dude85 5y ago

This is the exact distinction I'd like to make, in fact. The pension probably isn't managed by a union, it's managed by a board and management structure that will usually include both employees (who might be former employees, or members of one union, or a different union, or management) and representatives of the employer. The union most likely negotiates certain details of the pension in their contract, but actual management is not typically done by a union. Hence, they cannot easily use management of the pension fund (they don't manage it) against the employer, as the OP claims.

rocqua 5y ago

Unions have more hard power in the US. More control. Stuff like 'everyone who works has to be union'. Only X job can do Y. And Unions seek to increase their control as a defense against companies trying to take it back. European (dutch specifically) Unions have soft power. The only real control they have is declaring a strike. Everything else is bargaining for better terms of employment. The underlying trick is that entire sectors (willingly) have collective terms of employment.

wahern 5y ago
> Stuff like 'everyone who works has to be union' So-called closed shops haven't been legal in the U.S. for 75 years, and union shops for over 35 years. What you're probably thinking of are compulsory agency fees, which admittedly have escalated to as much as 1/3 to 2/3 of full union dues. Full union dues are typically 1%-3% of wages. (According to the Teamsters website, full monthly dues are 2.5 times hourly wages, which IIUC is 1.5%, assuming 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year.) But the Netherlands have mandatory Works Councils for any company with 50 or more employees, and the company is required to pay all the expenses, including legal and litigation expenses of the councils. So it's functionally the same thing, except the cost is hidden from the employee. Granted, the relationship between management and workers is much less hostile in Europe, so transactional costs are presumably substantially less. I wouldn't be surprised (but can't find numbers) if Works Councils budgets or comparable budgets for equivalent union representation are much less in Europe. But I also imagine the wage premium that union power in general provides European workers, whether workers are in a union or not, is substantially greater than in the U.S., so overall "costs" (i.e. surplus value shifting) incurred by corporations would be greater. Because management has always been so hostile to unions in the U.S., unions certainly have had to fight harder, and there's consequently more friction and acrimony. But it doesn't seem particularly fair to place that blame only on unions. IMO, management is much more culpable in that regard, but from a third-party observers' perspective one could easily simply chalk it up to American culture (and especially business and work culture) in general.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Indeed the Netherlands has mandatory works councils. I am even a part of one. It took me a while to realize that a works council is quite similar to a "one company union". Though normal works councils don't negotiate salaries (mine does because I fall outside of a collective employment agreement). As for costs I believe works councils don't have mandated budgets just some general 'reasonable to do the job' law. I actually should find out what budget my works council has. Though I expect it would be high, both because of salary negotiations, and just because the company wants a strong works council.

Ericson2314 5y ago

The 1930s 1940s upswing wasn't so conservative, but there were some purges with the cold war and then things took a self-defeating turn.