3 ms·
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 wo
by 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 agoI 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 agoSure, 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.
- chronofar 4y agoWell "almost always" is a step in the right direction, though I'd say is still a tad too strong. Probably favorable working conditions are reliably improved by unions, but there are also probably reliably less jobs to go around in union situations. And of course the specifics of the job also probably matter quite a good deal. I would be content with something like "Amazon warehouse workers would likely have reduced hours and improved medical benefits with a union."
- phabricator 4y agoThank you for some subtlety. I have friends that want Bezos beheaded and want the NYPD union defunded. Put most broadly: you are advocating for the creation of one union advocating for the reduction of another at the same time. And that's ok! Unions are humans and big groups of them need to be kept in check.