5 ms·

Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. Not organizing only makes your interests irrelevant. That can hardly be in anyones o

Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. Not organizing only makes your interests irrelevant. That can hardly be in anyones own interests.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. For example, say you're a talented younger worker and the majority of the union votes for pay by seniority, that's going against your interests.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Being in the union means you have a chance to influence those kinds of decisions.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Join a union so that you can fail to stop a change you never wanted in the first place? Why would you want to do that?
  - shuckles 4y ago
    Is it actually true that most people feel efficacy over their union’s policies? The only unions I’ve been involved with or heard of where fairly indifferent to most of their members’ preferences.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Being in a democracy means you have a chance to influence the decisions, yet you end up with decisions not only you as a minority don't like, but even you as a majority don't like.
meatsauce 4y ago
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  He did not really define the interests of other people. What kind of interests could one have, that are contrary to forming a union?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Very concrete example - in the UK most unions support one particular political party. If you don't like some of the positions of that party - for example you support the Greens or you’re a Liberal, or don't like what Labour did during the wars, or hated Corbyn, or hate Starmer - then you might find it offensive to join a union that campaigns for Labour.
    - martimarkov 4y ago
      A more concrete example - in the UK the unions support Labour on the basis of workers rights, that is to say a part of their program. If Labour tomorrow say - we don't care about worker rights and want to remove the minimal wage - they will get 0 support from the unions. Just because you have alignment with someone does not mean it's all or nothing and you agree with everything. By that logic we need 60mil ppl in the House as everyone will have their own views. + being in a union is not the same as supporting a political party. The unions didn't go around and say: "This war... Best thing ever! Everyone - support it pls" at least AFAIK - happy to be proven wrong
indigochill 4y ago
I realize mine is not necessarily a majority experience, but as a young single no-debt high-performing worker, I can negotiate a lot more effectively by myself than I could in a union because I can argue purely on my own merits and if the employer is unreasonable (and not all are) it's fairly easy for me to switch employers. I even moved to a different country early in my career for a better career opportunity. So no, unions are not in my personal interest. Though as I said, I can appreciate there are others who are less mobile or less inclined to negotiate as aggressively for whatever reason for whom they are useful. As long as unions don't get in my way (e.g. by mafia-style locking down an industry I want to work in) then I have no problem with them.
- stefan_ 4y ago
  You think there are Amazon warehouse workers negotiating? You know this isn't really a full-day interview process, get to know the team kinda job right.
- martimarkov 4y ago
  You can still negotiate and be in a union. Nobody takes that away from you. The union negotiates minimal conditions for all like minimal wage. You are a top performer - go the exact route you've described - nobody will stop you. It can work or not as you've said and the solution would be to find a new job.
  - junofan 4y ago
    In the US I believe there is no direct dealing, though I may be mistaken. Not sure about Canada. Presumably unions work differently (and likely better) in your country.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    This is 100%, extremely, dangerously, completely, utterly not the case in any North American union I've witnessed in North America. (it probably explains why it is difficult to have meaningful conversations and everybody attacks each other, if we have such radically different experiences and knowledge of union laws and procedures) FWIW, from my experience, In North America, it is the whole point of a union that "everybody gets the same" --> pay scale in particular. To make it explicit - if I'm in a union, I know EXACTLY how much anybody in any particular position makes. I can look it up in the pay scale table. I know how much my teacher cousin makes, I know how much my government friend makes, I know how much anybody at my brother-in-law's factory makes, by looking at the pay scale table. I would be eager to hear about other countries. Maybe unions are different in Europe or Asia or Africa etc. As I indicated above in a more detailed post, I am 100% supportive of unions in general, and have had 100% negative experience in North American unions in particular.
chronofar 4y ago
That is clearly too broad a brush. Collective bargaining is useful if your needs are aligned with the collective, if not they may be at best unhelpful and at worst actively counter productive (for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization). Not to mention various forms of corruption that can take hold in such arrangements. I wonder if the rather abhorrent means of union busting has led to an extreme reaction of causing passer bys to take a cartoonish slant, as though unions can only do good in the world and only if they can overcome evil corporate interest. Unions have some clear advantages, but are far from a panacea of aligning interests for all parties. This seems to me to be yet another fault line on which propagandists at the dials have managed to convince people to coalesce into tribes strong enough to use absolutist language where nuance is required.
- Aissen 4y ago
  > for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization Why ? I don't think unions forbid any direct negotiation. Or this is a US-thing ?
  - chronofar 4y ago
    I would imagine it's dependent on the specifics of the agreement, but as I understand it yes it would not be at all uncommon for the union to have incentive to stipulate members cannot negotiate outside of the union terms.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Sure, I agree with you, there are nuances. But it's also quite clear individual workers benefit from unionizing almost always. Corporations are large and have an enormous advantage in negotiation with a single, replaceable worker.
  - 4y ago

Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. Not organizing only makes your interests irrelevant. That can hardly be in anyones own interests.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> Whatever their interests are, they will be easier to achieve by unionizing. For example, say you're a talented younger worker and the majority of the union votes for pay by seniority, that's going against your interests.

geysersam 4y ago
Being in the union means you have a chance to influence those kinds of decisions.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Join a union so that you can fail to stop a change you never wanted in the first place? Why would you want to do that?
- shuckles 4y ago
  Is it actually true that most people feel efficacy over their union’s policies? The only unions I’ve been involved with or heard of where fairly indifferent to most of their members’ preferences.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Being in a democracy means you have a chance to influence the decisions, yet you end up with decisions not only you as a minority don't like, but even you as a majority don't like.

meatsauce 4y ago

red_trumpet 4y ago
He did not really define the interests of other people. What kind of interests could one have, that are contrary to forming a union?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Very concrete example - in the UK most unions support one particular political party. If you don't like some of the positions of that party - for example you support the Greens or you’re a Liberal, or don't like what Labour did during the wars, or hated Corbyn, or hate Starmer - then you might find it offensive to join a union that campaigns for Labour.
  - martimarkov 4y ago
    A more concrete example - in the UK the unions support Labour on the basis of workers rights, that is to say a part of their program. If Labour tomorrow say - we don't care about worker rights and want to remove the minimal wage - they will get 0 support from the unions. Just because you have alignment with someone does not mean it's all or nothing and you agree with everything. By that logic we need 60mil ppl in the House as everyone will have their own views. + being in a union is not the same as supporting a political party. The unions didn't go around and say: "This war... Best thing ever! Everyone - support it pls" at least AFAIK - happy to be proven wrong

indigochill 4y ago

I realize mine is not necessarily a majority experience, but as a young single no-debt high-performing worker, I can negotiate a lot more effectively by myself than I could in a union because I can argue purely on my own merits and if the employer is unreasonable (and not all are) it's fairly easy for me to switch employers. I even moved to a different country early in my career for a better career opportunity. So no, unions are not in my personal interest. Though as I said, I can appreciate there are others who are less mobile or less inclined to negotiate as aggressively for whatever reason for whom they are useful. As long as unions don't get in my way (e.g. by mafia-style locking down an industry I want to work in) then I have no problem with them.

stefan_ 4y ago
You think there are Amazon warehouse workers negotiating? You know this isn't really a full-day interview process, get to know the team kinda job right.
martimarkov 4y ago
You can still negotiate and be in a union. Nobody takes that away from you. The union negotiates minimal conditions for all like minimal wage. You are a top performer - go the exact route you've described - nobody will stop you. It can work or not as you've said and the solution would be to find a new job.
- junofan 4y ago
  In the US I believe there is no direct dealing, though I may be mistaken. Not sure about Canada. Presumably unions work differently (and likely better) in your country.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  This is 100%, extremely, dangerously, completely, utterly not the case in any North American union I've witnessed in North America. (it probably explains why it is difficult to have meaningful conversations and everybody attacks each other, if we have such radically different experiences and knowledge of union laws and procedures) FWIW, from my experience, In North America, it is the whole point of a union that "everybody gets the same" --> pay scale in particular. To make it explicit - if I'm in a union, I know EXACTLY how much anybody in any particular position makes. I can look it up in the pay scale table. I know how much my teacher cousin makes, I know how much my government friend makes, I know how much anybody at my brother-in-law's factory makes, by looking at the pay scale table. I would be eager to hear about other countries. Maybe unions are different in Europe or Asia or Africa etc. As I indicated above in a more detailed post, I am 100% supportive of unions in general, and have had 100% negative experience in North American unions in particular.

chronofar 4y ago

That is clearly too broad a brush. Collective bargaining is useful if your needs are aligned with the collective, if not they may be at best unhelpful and at worst actively counter productive (for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization). Not to mention various forms of corruption that can take hold in such arrangements. I wonder if the rather abhorrent means of union busting has led to an extreme reaction of causing passer bys to take a cartoonish slant, as though unions can only do good in the world and only if they can overcome evil corporate interest. Unions have some clear advantages, but are far from a panacea of aligning interests for all parties. This seems to me to be yet another fault line on which propagandists at the dials have managed to convince people to coalesce into tribes strong enough to use absolutist language where nuance is required.

Aissen 4y ago
> for instance if you have some personal circumstance you wanted to negotiate beyond the terms of the agreement, rather than negotiating with a boss or two you now have to negotiate with your representative organization Why ? I don't think unions forbid any direct negotiation. Or this is a US-thing ?
- chronofar 4y ago
  I would imagine it's dependent on the specifics of the agreement, but as I understand it yes it would not be at all uncommon for the union to have incentive to stipulate members cannot negotiate outside of the union terms.
geysersam 4y ago
Sure, I agree with you, there are nuances. But it's also quite clear individual workers benefit from unionizing almost always. Corporations are large and have an enormous advantage in negotiation with a single, replaceable worker.
- 4y ago