3 ms·

Having seen how several family members fared in union jobs (several different unions), I swore I'd never belong to a union or work any job that required me to b

Having seen how several family members fared in union jobs (several different unions), I swore I'd never belong to a union or work any job that required me to be part of one. They all had such an adversarial relationship with work. It's always us against them mentality. They could never see anyone in management as a human. I can't imagine living like that. As far as I can tell, the unions didn't ever solve any of their biggest gripes, took money out of their paychecks for lots of non-work related political activities, and didn't come through when they really needed to on things like pensions or healthcare.

annexrichmond 4y ago
I have the same feeling having seen family members in unions. My mother is a really hard worker, and plays by the rules, and that means nothing in her union while her colleagues abuse sick policies, push more work into her and so on. All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. From what I understand is this is done because it's the fairest way. Unions, like anything, can be corrupted. It would be funny if the union rep's nephew always got promotions over other people. This is an attempt to prevent that. In other words, it's the least-worst way of doing it. >My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers. Possibly. In my experience, it's usually in the form of a $5 Starbucks gift card every year. It really depends on the position and the company. I've seen a lot of hard ass workers get treated like shit.
andrekandre 4y ago
is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden? personally, i think i would prefer a co-ownership (coop) scheme than union, since that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers... idk just a thought
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers This is only true if everyone has exactly the same responsibilities, hours, working conditions and pay. All differences lead to divergences of interest.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    well, there will always be a divergence (no two people have the exact same needs or wants) but i would argue being co-owner with others helps as a forcing function to help converge interests (you wouldn't be happy with a co-worker slacking off since they're also wasting your money/time not just 'the companys') and there are many successful co-ops where people have different responsibilities, hours and pay, i don't think that is a requirement for co-ownership (though the variance is definitely less than traditional top-down orgs thats for sure)
- astrange 4y ago
  > is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden? It wouldn't happen in other countries because the US has a uniquely adversarial union structure, where Europe uses codetermination (ICs with board seats) and sectoral bargaining (don't have to convert one company at a time).
bglazer 4y ago
Since we’re doing anecdotes, a member of my family is an airline pilot and a member of the pilots union. It has been extremely effective in negotiating better working conditions and higher pay for my family member. Keep in mind that, absent union representation, being a pilot can be absolutely punishing, to the point of being dangerous. Also, the company is able to maintain very high standards for the quality and skill of the pilots. There are not “useless Joe’s”, as evidenced by the fact that the planes don’t crash. This family member is a diehard conservative politically but openly espouses the value of the union for representing his interests against the company.

annexrichmond 4y ago

I have the same feeling having seen family members in unions. My mother is a really hard worker, and plays by the rules, and that means nothing in her union while her colleagues abuse sick policies, push more work into her and so on. All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers.

Clubber 4y ago
>All what matters there is tenure, not the quality of employee you are. From what I understand is this is done because it's the fairest way. Unions, like anything, can be corrupted. It would be funny if the union rep's nephew always got promotions over other people. This is an attempt to prevent that. In other words, it's the least-worst way of doing it. >My takeaway is that she would be far more successful in a non unionized workplace because hers was definitely more beneficial for slackers. Possibly. In my experience, it's usually in the form of a $5 Starbucks gift card every year. It really depends on the position and the company. I've seen a lot of hard ass workers get treated like shit.

andrekandre 4y ago

is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden? personally, i think i would prefer a co-ownership (coop) scheme than union, since that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers... idk just a thought

barry-cotter 4y ago
> that adversarial relationship is basically dissolved since you are also the owner along with your co-workers This is only true if everyone has exactly the same responsibilities, hours, working conditions and pay. All differences lead to divergences of interest.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  well, there will always be a divergence (no two people have the exact same needs or wants) but i would argue being co-owner with others helps as a forcing function to help converge interests (you wouldn't be happy with a co-worker slacking off since they're also wasting your money/time not just 'the companys') and there are many successful co-ops where people have different responsibilities, hours and pay, i don't think that is a requirement for co-ownership (though the variance is definitely less than traditional top-down orgs thats for sure)
astrange 4y ago
> is it possible that adversarial relationship might exist even without a union but it would just be hidden? It wouldn't happen in other countries because the US has a uniquely adversarial union structure, where Europe uses codetermination (ICs with board seats) and sectoral bargaining (don't have to convert one company at a time).

bglazer 4y ago

Since we’re doing anecdotes, a member of my family is an airline pilot and a member of the pilots union. It has been extremely effective in negotiating better working conditions and higher pay for my family member. Keep in mind that, absent union representation, being a pilot can be absolutely punishing, to the point of being dangerous. Also, the company is able to maintain very high standards for the quality and skill of the pilots. There are not “useless Joe’s”, as evidenced by the fact that the planes don’t crash. This family member is a diehard conservative politically but openly espouses the value of the union for representing his interests against the company.