3 ms·

While I like the idea of unions, I can say that they've been a disappointment in my career. One of my colleagues desperately needed the protection of the union

While I like the idea of unions, I can say that they've been a disappointment in my career. One of my colleagues desperately needed the protection of the union at work when he got caught up in office politics. Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. It was all cancel culture. The union, though, didn't back him up at all. They make a big show about somehow fighting management for the workers, but in this case they were happy to help the management screw the guy over and end his career. Sure they're a union, but they're humans and sometimes they'll be aligned against you.

kqr 4y ago
This is not a problem with unions as a concept, but rather with the huge, centralised, bureaucratic, political entities they have become in practise. That type of organisation has some benefits, but I believe federations of highly local unions would be more effective for helping individual people deal with specific pickles.
- TimeBearingDown 4y ago
  It’s easily possible to argue that the concept or structure of unions, and their relationships to business, as generally implemented, tends towards those corruptions.
  - Ar-Curunir 4y ago
    The same argument applies to the structure of capitalism.
flatline 4y ago
I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It’s an interesting problem. On the one hand it’s a free country you can say what you please and your employee can fire you for it. On the other hand I think it’s inhumane for someone to lose their job - and most notably healthcare - because they are one of a large number of knob heads out there and were unwise enough to advertise it.
- Larrikin 4y ago
  I think someone who is willing to speak out hatefully against large swathes of the population based on things like sex and race are exactly the kind of people that should be ostracized. In the case of the work environment, getting fired. If they aren't, they stick around, making coworkers uncomfortable, possibly getting promoted and then ensuring the group they hate doesn't get hired or promoted But HR departments are not usually doing that as a first step. They talk to the employee and try to get an apology if needed. The stories in the news are always egregious examples or people with a long history and it was the last straw
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Without a due process ensured by a union, it’s very hard to know what they did. Even if someone does something truly horrific, unions still need to protect their rights to a proper hearing, evidence, etc. A while ago a reporter was fired from the NYTimes for repeating racist language used by a third party. The reporter had works at the NYTimes for decades with a clear record. A few years before the incident, they became part of unions negotiating team. Once they joined the negotiating team, the paper suddenly began disciplining then for minor infractions. Once the allegations about racist language came about, they had a dirty record. Per the union agreement, had a right to see the evidence against them. The paper refused to do that. If this person hadn’t been part of union negotiating team, they would have had a clean record, and likely would have survived. They are now working as a reporter at the Economist.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  > Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. How does that translate into making racist or hateful statements? A better translation is they were in a forum where racist or hateful statements were made, but did it participate in making them.

kqr 4y ago

This is not a problem with unions as a concept, but rather with the huge, centralised, bureaucratic, political entities they have become in practise. That type of organisation has some benefits, but I believe federations of highly local unions would be more effective for helping individual people deal with specific pickles.

TimeBearingDown 4y ago
It’s easily possible to argue that the concept or structure of unions, and their relationships to business, as generally implemented, tends towards those corruptions.
- Ar-Curunir 4y ago
  The same argument applies to the structure of capitalism.

flatline 4y ago

I’m reading this as, he made racist or otherwise hateful statements in a semi-public forum and nobody was going to put their organization’s name behind that. It’s an interesting problem. On the one hand it’s a free country you can say what you please and your employee can fire you for it. On the other hand I think it’s inhumane for someone to lose their job - and most notably healthcare - because they are one of a large number of knob heads out there and were unwise enough to advertise it.

Larrikin 4y ago
I think someone who is willing to speak out hatefully against large swathes of the population based on things like sex and race are exactly the kind of people that should be ostracized. In the case of the work environment, getting fired. If they aren't, they stick around, making coworkers uncomfortable, possibly getting promoted and then ensuring the group they hate doesn't get hired or promoted But HR departments are not usually doing that as a first step. They talk to the employee and try to get an apology if needed. The stories in the news are always egregious examples or people with a long history and it was the last straw
pyuser583 4y ago
Without a due process ensured by a union, it’s very hard to know what they did. Even if someone does something truly horrific, unions still need to protect their rights to a proper hearing, evidence, etc. A while ago a reporter was fired from the NYTimes for repeating racist language used by a third party. The reporter had works at the NYTimes for decades with a clear record. A few years before the incident, they became part of unions negotiating team. Once they joined the negotiating team, the paper suddenly began disciplining then for minor infractions. Once the allegations about racist language came about, they had a dirty record. Per the union agreement, had a right to see the evidence against them. The paper refused to do that. If this person hadn’t been part of union negotiating team, they would have had a clean record, and likely would have survived. They are now working as a reporter at the Economist.
pyuser583 4y ago
> Some of his rivals for a big promotion got him accused of something that had nothing to do with work. How does that translate into making racist or hateful statements? A better translation is they were in a forum where racist or hateful statements were made, but did it participate in making them.