3 ms·

It's interesting to see the cyclical rise and fall of workers unions in the US. I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between worker and employer

It's interesting to see the cyclical rise and fall of workers unions in the US. I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between worker and employer rights - however it seems that, at least in the US, that balance swings back and forth quite often. It seems like anti-union proponents will remind you of the bad times when unions had too much power, and union supporters will remind you of the bad times when the employers had too much power. These days we actually see a lot more of the latter. Will we swing back and forth indefinitely? Probably.

Ericson2314 5y ago
It is really hard to make a case there ever was a "bad time workers had too much power" in the US. MAYBE you could in Europe, where in 1980s there was some decline in private sector investment concurrent with lower profit rates, but that never happened here.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between worker and employer rights But that's not what we're talking about here. If I am making $8 an hour at my current job and Amazon is willing to pay me $15 an hour but the union says no, first of all we insist on $20 an hour and second of all we decide who gets those jobs and your name isn't on the list, that isn't worker rights, is it? It's not worker rights or employer rights, it's union rights. Wise up. There's a long history here - certainly on Staten Island - about how this all plays out and where the money goes.
- Epa095 5y ago
  And you go straight to fulfill OPs prophecy: "It seems like anti-union proponents will remind you of the bad times when unions had too much power," BTW, the way you characterise unions are interesting. Very different from how they work here in Northern Europe. I wonder if American unions really are as corrupt and screwed up as the Internet makes them sound.
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    It's not a matter of a union having too much power, it's a matter of why would a union have any power over me whatsoever? I didn't elect a union. If I want to work for a company and they want to hire me, how does a union have the power to tell me I can't work for them and the company can't hire me?
    - black_puppydog 5y ago
      That's not my understanding, no. IIRC there was specific legislation that a union has to represent every worker in the shop, and that legislation was specifically introduced to misalign the incentives between workers and unions.
    - CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago
      The employees at this Amazon warehouse just _did_ elect to unionize. This is the free market at work. If Employers can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly, or if their employees can't earn a living wage, and if the employee's government is doing nothing to help (raising minimum wage), then who is to say the employees can't band together and demand higher pay? Even if unions never actually materialize, just the _threat_ of a union should be enough to wake up company leadership and make them say "oh shit, maybe we should treat our employees better". I understand unions have caused problems in the past. They've caused huge problems, and have had to be scaled back. But that's exactly the balance I'm talking about. We're just swinging on the pendulum towards workers rights at this time. I'm 100% sure if more unions spring up, we'll be hearing horror stories about work stoppages and companies shutting down product lines. But we hear plenty of horror stories about companies mistreating employees right now. We're just riding the free market pendulum. It doesn't exactly get me out of my seat to think that Amazon might have to make a little less profit, or pay their executives $50 million less next year, or hell, even that prices might rise a little, if it means the free market is actually at work. In an ideal world the pendulum would stop swinging, and we would be in the middle forever. That should theoretically be the job of our government. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Ericson2314 5y ago

It is really hard to make a case there ever was a "bad time workers had too much power" in the US. MAYBE you could in Europe, where in 1980s there was some decline in private sector investment concurrent with lower profit rates, but that never happened here.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

>> I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a balance between worker and employer rights But that's not what we're talking about here. If I am making $8 an hour at my current job and Amazon is willing to pay me $15 an hour but the union says no, first of all we insist on $20 an hour and second of all we decide who gets those jobs and your name isn't on the list, that isn't worker rights, is it? It's not worker rights or employer rights, it's union rights. Wise up. There's a long history here - certainly on Staten Island - about how this all plays out and where the money goes.

Epa095 5y ago
And you go straight to fulfill OPs prophecy: "It seems like anti-union proponents will remind you of the bad times when unions had too much power," BTW, the way you characterise unions are interesting. Very different from how they work here in Northern Europe. I wonder if American unions really are as corrupt and screwed up as the Internet makes them sound.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  It's not a matter of a union having too much power, it's a matter of why would a union have any power over me whatsoever? I didn't elect a union. If I want to work for a company and they want to hire me, how does a union have the power to tell me I can't work for them and the company can't hire me?
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    That's not my understanding, no. IIRC there was specific legislation that a union has to represent every worker in the shop, and that legislation was specifically introduced to misalign the incentives between workers and unions.
  - CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago
    The employees at this Amazon warehouse just _did_ elect to unionize. This is the free market at work. If Employers can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly, or if their employees can't earn a living wage, and if the employee's government is doing nothing to help (raising minimum wage), then who is to say the employees can't band together and demand higher pay? Even if unions never actually materialize, just the _threat_ of a union should be enough to wake up company leadership and make them say "oh shit, maybe we should treat our employees better". I understand unions have caused problems in the past. They've caused huge problems, and have had to be scaled back. But that's exactly the balance I'm talking about. We're just swinging on the pendulum towards workers rights at this time. I'm 100% sure if more unions spring up, we'll be hearing horror stories about work stoppages and companies shutting down product lines. But we hear plenty of horror stories about companies mistreating employees right now. We're just riding the free market pendulum. It doesn't exactly get me out of my seat to think that Amazon might have to make a little less profit, or pay their executives $50 million less next year, or hell, even that prices might rise a little, if it means the free market is actually at work. In an ideal world the pendulum would stop swinging, and we would be in the middle forever. That should theoretically be the job of our government. But I don't see that happening any time soon.