4 ms·

U.S. Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 1965

44 points by MilnerRoute 4y ago

entropicgravity 4y ago
The size of the union must be regulated to the size of the company and vis a versa. Then it's a fair fight. None of this Teamsters organizing a mom and pop hardware store or Wal Mart having a separate union for every store.
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  Labor is at an inherent disadvantage numbers of people equal.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  It's an unfair fight regardless, because one side has their contract liberty (unionized workers can quit, negotiate with other prospective employers), while the government denies the other side theirs (companies mandated to collectively bargain can't fire and replace unionize workers, and can't negotiate with prospective employees outside of the union). The power disparity is to the point that the point that the only thing that kills unions is the contraction/bankruptcy of the industry they colonize. Look at Detroit: it was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self.
  - visiblink 4y ago
    You've ignored the fact that unions are limited to organizing one workplace at a time. Companies routinely close unionized locations. In a contest over the revenues of the enterprise between those who have only their labor to sell and those who have an excess of capital, I know where I stand. The power disparity favours the rich. It's crazy that I have to say that.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Unions are not limited at all. It's just that they don't get the special privilege of having a multi-work-unit vote recognized as binding on their employer. The government mandates on employers are only imposed as a consequence of single-work-unit votes. Evaluating union options as only those where they can exercise the power to restrict a company's contract freedom is very misleading. >>In a contest over the revenues of the enterprise between those who have only their labor to sell and those who have an excess of capital, I know where I stand. Of course the employer will have more control over the revenues of the enterprise that they own. If it was otherwise it would imply the state transferred ownership of the company's assets to the union. The disparity is in the ability to freely negotiate and exercise contract liberty. The unions have it, and employers do not. When a work unit votes to collectively bargain, the company loses a significant amount of contract liberty, and their only option - if they want to completely disassociate from the workers within that work unit - to close that site altogether.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    It's a slightly more complicated story than that: Japanese manufacturers have unions. Japanese manufacturers in the USA are often in states with anti-union rules. Unionised American firms were competing with non-unionised Japanese plants. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-cutler6-2008dec06-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-cutler6-2008dec06-stor...
    - cafard 4y ago
      And in 1950 Japanese and German industry had really not recovered from WW II.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Yeah, I mean squeeze people a bit and they will resent their masters, squeeze them even more and they will band together for protection against them, squeeze them enough and they'll revolt. We should be happy we're at step two and not step three. Until then, the inherent tension between who has the labor and who pays the labor is resolved, each will orbit the other looking for a hole in their armor.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Sorry, not really making the connection. Care to explain?
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      In the off-chance that you're being sincere in your bufuddlement: this is a classic Marxist class-warfare narrative framing workers as exploited victims and vilifying employers as exploiters: "I mean squeeze people a bit and they will resent their masters, squeeze them even more and they will band together for protection against them, squeeze them enough and they'll revolt."
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Oh cool, where does he describe this if I wanted to learn more about it?
        ETH_start 4y ago
        You can learn about the end results of this ideology here: https://reason.com/1974/11/01/solzhenitsyns-testament/?amp https://reason.com/1974/11/01/solzhenitsyns-testament/?amp

44 points by MilnerRoute 4y ago

The size of the union must be regulated to the size of the company and vis a versa. Then it's a fair fight. None of this Teamsters organizing a mom and pop hardware store or Wal Mart having a separate union for every store.

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
Labor is at an inherent disadvantage numbers of people equal.
ETH_start 4y ago
It's an unfair fight regardless, because one side has their contract liberty (unionized workers can quit, negotiate with other prospective employers), while the government denies the other side theirs (companies mandated to collectively bargain can't fire and replace unionize workers, and can't negotiate with prospective employees outside of the union). The power disparity is to the point that the point that the only thing that kills unions is the contraction/bankruptcy of the industry they colonize. Look at Detroit: it was the richest city in America in 1950. Within 40 years of the UAW Union taking over the Big Three automakers (membership rose through the 50s and 60s, peaking in 1979), the big automakers have lost their market dominance, and Detroit is a shell of its former self.
- visiblink 4y ago
  You've ignored the fact that unions are limited to organizing one workplace at a time. Companies routinely close unionized locations. In a contest over the revenues of the enterprise between those who have only their labor to sell and those who have an excess of capital, I know where I stand. The power disparity favours the rich. It's crazy that I have to say that.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Unions are not limited at all. It's just that they don't get the special privilege of having a multi-work-unit vote recognized as binding on their employer. The government mandates on employers are only imposed as a consequence of single-work-unit votes. Evaluating union options as only those where they can exercise the power to restrict a company's contract freedom is very misleading. >>In a contest over the revenues of the enterprise between those who have only their labor to sell and those who have an excess of capital, I know where I stand. Of course the employer will have more control over the revenues of the enterprise that they own. If it was otherwise it would imply the state transferred ownership of the company's assets to the union. The disparity is in the ability to freely negotiate and exercise contract liberty. The unions have it, and employers do not. When a work unit votes to collectively bargain, the company loses a significant amount of contract liberty, and their only option - if they want to completely disassociate from the workers within that work unit - to close that site altogether.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  It's a slightly more complicated story than that: Japanese manufacturers have unions. Japanese manufacturers in the USA are often in states with anti-union rules. Unionised American firms were competing with non-unionised Japanese plants. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-cutler6-2008dec06-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-cutler6-2008dec06-stor...
  - cafard 4y ago
    And in 1950 Japanese and German industry had really not recovered from WW II.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Yeah, I mean squeeze people a bit and they will resent their masters, squeeze them even more and they will band together for protection against them, squeeze them enough and they'll revolt. We should be happy we're at step two and not step three. Until then, the inherent tension between who has the labor and who pays the labor is resolved, each will orbit the other looking for a hole in their armor.

ETH_start 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Sorry, not really making the connection. Care to explain?
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    In the off-chance that you're being sincere in your bufuddlement: this is a classic Marxist class-warfare narrative framing workers as exploited victims and vilifying employers as exploiters: "I mean squeeze people a bit and they will resent their masters, squeeze them even more and they will band together for protection against them, squeeze them enough and they'll revolt."
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Oh cool, where does he describe this if I wanted to learn more about it?
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        You can learn about the end results of this ideology here: https://reason.com/1974/11/01/solzhenitsyns-testament/?amp https://reason.com/1974/11/01/solzhenitsyns-testament/?amp