5 ms·

> Companies will pay millions to union-busting law firms because labor organization is really the only thing that will improve the material conditions of their

> Companies will pay millions to union-busting law firms because labor organization is really the only thing that will improve the material conditions of their workers. Don’t better working conditions attract better employees? If labor organization is the only way to achieve this (as you claim), wouldn’t companies be encouraging unionization to improve their competitiveness in the labor market?

becquerel 4y ago
No, companies don't need to compete on that level, because the labour market is (usually!) weighted in the favour of employers. People are desperate enough to take any job they can get that companies don't have to make concessions like tolerating unionization.
- throwntoday 4y ago
  No thanks. Unions might be good in theory but I don't trust my coworkers to collectively make decisions that are in my best interest. I would rather negotiate on my own and save myself union dues. Unions are basically like a HOA, and I would never lock myself into one of those either.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    You're never negotiating on your own, you're negotiating against the entire labor market and what practices have been standardized or adopted. Nominally this can work if you work on the edges of the labor market (smaller shops) but standards are often set by the big tech companies as smaller ones seek to emulate their success. If you don't trust your coworkers, then you're placing your trust in companies to make decisions for you. And that's why we're seeing the rise in unionization again because it hasn't worked out that well.
    - throwntoday 4y ago
      > If you don't trust your coworkers, then you're placing your trust in companies to make decisions for you Why do I have to trust either of them? My coworkers often seem intent on doing as little work as possible. They are somewhere between bourgeois and champagne socialist. Management is comprised of the same people. I think many are just lazy and have gotten worse over the last two years.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    You know depends on the job. For a coder no, I don't know, maybe not. Still would appreciate many of the things a union could do for me, but it doesn't line up that neatly. Whereas for a carpenter definitely. Or working in construction, I'm going to be part of a union somewhere, if there isn't a union I'll go to where there is one, if it's small and weak make it larger and stronger. And work like fuck while inside it, I love doing that, doing perfect work and sweet alienation while working. It's just too dangerous without a union, one of the big wins a union gives you is workplace safety. That's not a fucking joke, bosses do try to push you into bad working conditions for marginal amounts of money, just scream at you to work faster, that's just wrong. I could have lost fingers working under the Chilean minimum wage. I could have damaged my spine working a bottling station alone with three people on the other side, rotating my back too much too fast (like do I have to be a fucking doctor to know that that's harmful, if it hurts the wrong way I have to deflect that work). And plus, the wages are much better with unions, you get better raises, and you can actually--get this--bring up win-win situations for the company without getting cheated out of your upside completely. And I would love to pay Union dues. They're such little money, like nothing, like 1% or some meaningless shit? Even if they were 8%. The money you spend that you get nothing back from directly is the money that really gives you dignity. Like taxes, I love paying taxes too. Pay the fuck out of those taxes. Knock out those taxes.
teknofobi 4y ago
Yes, you will see examples of this in the Nordics. However, the equilibrium is fragile and does need cooperative legislation to disallow obviously bad behaviour leading to races to the bottom. Things such as Reagan/PATCO and union/mafia ties are probably making it very hard to restore any sort of healthy equilibrium in the US.
aqme28 4y ago
That's why the lack of a union is more of a problem in fields where workers are commoditized. The trick though is to unionize before you're a commodity, when you still have leverage.
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
  I had to throw a table at a software developer because he was laughing and calling idiots some people who were wired at our company for trying to set up a union (in Germany) In case software development change course the developers will be in a bad state for their ignorance of the world of the world outside the display :(
robonerd 4y ago
> Don’t better working conditions attract better employees? Nope. Perception of better working conditions attracts better employees. Actually improving working condition is one way to boilster that perception but companies have found cheaper alternatives, like beanbag chairs and brand cults.
jmyeet 4y ago
I'm assuming your comment is given in good faith. What you're describing there is intentionally or unintentionally capitalist propaganda. What this ignores is the extreme power imbalance between the employer and the employee. It also ignores human history where the improvements in labor conditions through the Industrial REvolution came through labor organization. Maritime is a good example of how market forces don't work in the favor of worker safety. The Titanic is a famous example where there weren't enough lifeboats for everyone on board but that capped off centuries of ships that weren't seaworthy and other issues. What really changed was in the 1970s many unions in the US had become bloated and corrupt. A famous example is Jimmy Hoffa continued to be paid $100,000/year as the union president from jail in the 1960s. The late 70s saw the rise of Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US. In the 1980s, labor unions were completely eviscerated. Thatcher in particular went on major union-busting efforts gainst the coal miners and the newspaper industry. Is it really any surprise that real wages have remained stagnant since the 1980s? At what point are people going to realize that the only way to correct this is for labor organization?
VictorPath 4y ago
Labor organization is the only way a worker can keep more of their expropriated surplus time, and the wealth they created during that time, as opposed to the heir who collects dividends from AAPL. Hairs can be split, but not on that.

becquerel 4y ago

No, companies don't need to compete on that level, because the labour market is (usually!) weighted in the favour of employers. People are desperate enough to take any job they can get that companies don't have to make concessions like tolerating unionization.

throwntoday 4y ago
No thanks. Unions might be good in theory but I don't trust my coworkers to collectively make decisions that are in my best interest. I would rather negotiate on my own and save myself union dues. Unions are basically like a HOA, and I would never lock myself into one of those either.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  You're never negotiating on your own, you're negotiating against the entire labor market and what practices have been standardized or adopted. Nominally this can work if you work on the edges of the labor market (smaller shops) but standards are often set by the big tech companies as smaller ones seek to emulate their success. If you don't trust your coworkers, then you're placing your trust in companies to make decisions for you. And that's why we're seeing the rise in unionization again because it hasn't worked out that well.
  - throwntoday 4y ago
    > If you don't trust your coworkers, then you're placing your trust in companies to make decisions for you Why do I have to trust either of them? My coworkers often seem intent on doing as little work as possible. They are somewhere between bourgeois and champagne socialist. Management is comprised of the same people. I think many are just lazy and have gotten worse over the last two years.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  You know depends on the job. For a coder no, I don't know, maybe not. Still would appreciate many of the things a union could do for me, but it doesn't line up that neatly. Whereas for a carpenter definitely. Or working in construction, I'm going to be part of a union somewhere, if there isn't a union I'll go to where there is one, if it's small and weak make it larger and stronger. And work like fuck while inside it, I love doing that, doing perfect work and sweet alienation while working. It's just too dangerous without a union, one of the big wins a union gives you is workplace safety. That's not a fucking joke, bosses do try to push you into bad working conditions for marginal amounts of money, just scream at you to work faster, that's just wrong. I could have lost fingers working under the Chilean minimum wage. I could have damaged my spine working a bottling station alone with three people on the other side, rotating my back too much too fast (like do I have to be a fucking doctor to know that that's harmful, if it hurts the wrong way I have to deflect that work). And plus, the wages are much better with unions, you get better raises, and you can actually--get this--bring up win-win situations for the company without getting cheated out of your upside completely. And I would love to pay Union dues. They're such little money, like nothing, like 1% or some meaningless shit? Even if they were 8%. The money you spend that you get nothing back from directly is the money that really gives you dignity. Like taxes, I love paying taxes too. Pay the fuck out of those taxes. Knock out those taxes.

teknofobi 4y ago

Yes, you will see examples of this in the Nordics. However, the equilibrium is fragile and does need cooperative legislation to disallow obviously bad behaviour leading to races to the bottom. Things such as Reagan/PATCO and union/mafia ties are probably making it very hard to restore any sort of healthy equilibrium in the US.

aqme28 4y ago

That's why the lack of a union is more of a problem in fields where workers are commoditized. The trick though is to unionize before you're a commodity, when you still have leverage.

lnxg33k1 4y ago
I had to throw a table at a software developer because he was laughing and calling idiots some people who were wired at our company for trying to set up a union (in Germany) In case software development change course the developers will be in a bad state for their ignorance of the world of the world outside the display :(

robonerd 4y ago

> Don’t better working conditions attract better employees? Nope. Perception of better working conditions attracts better employees. Actually improving working condition is one way to boilster that perception but companies have found cheaper alternatives, like beanbag chairs and brand cults.

jmyeet 4y ago

I'm assuming your comment is given in good faith. What you're describing there is intentionally or unintentionally capitalist propaganda. What this ignores is the extreme power imbalance between the employer and the employee. It also ignores human history where the improvements in labor conditions through the Industrial REvolution came through labor organization. Maritime is a good example of how market forces don't work in the favor of worker safety. The Titanic is a famous example where there weren't enough lifeboats for everyone on board but that capped off centuries of ships that weren't seaworthy and other issues. What really changed was in the 1970s many unions in the US had become bloated and corrupt. A famous example is Jimmy Hoffa continued to be paid $100,000/year as the union president from jail in the 1960s. The late 70s saw the rise of Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US. In the 1980s, labor unions were completely eviscerated. Thatcher in particular went on major union-busting efforts gainst the coal miners and the newspaper industry. Is it really any surprise that real wages have remained stagnant since the 1980s? At what point are people going to realize that the only way to correct this is for labor organization?

VictorPath 4y ago

Labor organization is the only way a worker can keep more of their expropriated surplus time, and the wealth they created during that time, as opposed to the heir who collects dividends from AAPL. Hairs can be split, but not on that.