6 ms·

If unions decreased lifetime earnings, do you think companies would fight them so vehemently?

pessimizer 4y ago
Who said unions decreased lifetime earnings? edit: If you're trying to say that this study and the amount that union membership earns a worker is obviously correct without using any reference to the study, I disagree with that method of processing new information.
kevinventullo 4y ago
If they decreased lifetime earnings but increased the cost to the company of each employee, the company still has an incentive to fight them.
VirusNewbie 4y ago
Possibly. Do you think salary is the main motivation for companies? Do you think FAANG companies couldn't find 50k engineers in the US that would accept 50% pay? Of course they could, but they feel that they're getting more value by paying more.
- diob 4y ago
  Do you remember when the top tech companies colluded to suppress wages? I do. Read up on it, they agreed to basically not compete for talent.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  They are hiring employees they don’t need to take people off market.
londons_explore 4y ago
Unions might decrease lifetime earnings, while also killing off the industry entirely... For example, classically union heavy industries like coal mining... And weaving...
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I don't see many ferriers or coopers these days either, but I doubt union membership had much to do with that. Interestingly, black lung cases have increased in the last decade https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html I wonder if that correlates with union membership?
- diob 4y ago
  Yeah, my dreams of coal mining and weaving have been dashed by these dang unions.
  - alvah 4y ago
    It must have taken a special effort to miss the point by that much.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      They didn't miss the point, just pointed out that unionizing is not what killed those industries.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  I can't seriously believe that the textile industry wouldn't have moved overseas regardless of whether or not US workers unionized. (And killing the coal mining industry can't be anything but a good thing)
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Of all the things that killed coal extraction in the US, I don't think unions were one of them.
- mustyoshi 4y ago
  Is the coal industry dead? In 2008 the US was producing more coal than it had ever before. Even in 2016 it was still above the peak production levels of the 1970s.
diob 4y ago
The business lead propaganda in the USA is insanely effective. Point to data, and folks still try to justify why unions bad (anecdotes, deflection, etc.). Point to overseas success, well, USA is exceptional wouldn't work here. Rather than argue, just ask them what would change their mind? Otherwise the line will always move.
- planetsprite 4y ago
  As goes the value-based conception of deservedness in America. Your worth == your net worth. Why should the capital owners, who are providing money and benefits to their employees cede further their assurance those employees are infinitely replicable? They are, aren't they, without the artifice of a union. In China there's the notion of the Mandate of Heaven, a philosophy that whoever is currently ruling is the ruler justified by god, evidenced by the fact that the universe, or god, has allowed that person to become the ruler. The general American capitalist philosophy applies this on an individual level. One's impoverishment or lack thereof is a justified realization of their inherent worth. If they were worth more, they wouldn't be employees, they'd be founders, calling the shots, right?
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    maybe a psychological summary for adults involved, but no.. labor and business law is convoluted and many-times very specific, and you can win in court with either, presented competently. "make your fate"
- hedora 4y ago
  How does the behavior of European unions prove that the big national unions in the US aren't corrupt? Switching the US to be open shop would change my mind. This would allow people to easily switch away from or negotiate with abusive unions. The unions I have dealt with have universally been more abusive than my employers, to the point where employers would try to sneak unauthorized employee benefits through contract loopholes. In one case the union agrees to let the company hire non-union labor (with capped, low pay and benefits) to do the jobs of union employees with seniority that refused to work and could not be fired. If you think my repeated personal experiences with multiple national unions are all anecdotal outliers, then explain why wildcat strikes have become common in the US in recent years.
MichaelBurge 4y ago
What if the unions hire lawyers for negotiation, and so do the companies? Then everyone except the lawyers loses out. Unions need to pay lobbyists so politicians don't repeal the laws they use, lawyers to review any agreements with the companies, possibly decrease the pool of revenue available to be split between workers and management(say, if doing something new gets caught up in negotiations and they lose first-mover advantage), advertising campaigns to convince people that unions are good, etc. Depending on exact circumstances, they could be good for both companies and workers, or bad for both. I'm also skeptical that companies are so competent that we should model them as ideal agents optimizing for profit EV. There are plenty of bankrupt incompetent companies, and while the remainder are the product of "natural selection", they only need to be fit enough to survive and not true optimizers. It's entirely possible that a company could benefit from unions, but management would be too prideful about losing control.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Companies ready hire a huge number of lawyers and pay off a large number of lobbyist, especially at the large enterprise size. We already know the answer is you have less bargaining power and get paid less.
grandmczeb 4y ago
If putting my hand in a wood-chipper decreased lifetime earnings, why does my company tell me not to do it?
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  If you're a low-wage worker with workman's comp and decent insurance, it could very well increase your lifetime earnings. https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-148-errol-morris-9-25-2020/ https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-148-errol-morris-9-25-202... > Early in his career, Errol Morris read about a shocking series of alleged insurance crimes in a small town in Florida, which some referred to as “Nub City.” There were allegations that men and women were mutilating themselves — removing hands and feet — in order to exploit accidental dismemberment clauses in insurance policies, and collect money.
snapplebobapple 4y ago
Depends on if the lifetime earnings decrease was big enough to cover the myriad of other negative things having a unionized workforce does to a business, particularly in the ability to remove junk employees and to pivot when a new and better way of doing things for the current business line or a better line emerges.
fatnoah 4y ago
Unions aren't just about money. They're also about rules governing what work can be done and when. Sometimes this leads to absurd situations, but it also prevents someone hired and paid for one job from being forced to work unfavorable hours, or to do work that normally would be paid more.

Who said unions decreased lifetime earnings? edit: If you're trying to say that this study and the amount that union membership earns a worker is obviously correct without using any reference to the study, I disagree with that method of processing new information.

kevinventullo 4y ago

If they decreased lifetime earnings but increased the cost to the company of each employee, the company still has an incentive to fight them.

VirusNewbie 4y ago

Possibly. Do you think salary is the main motivation for companies? Do you think FAANG companies couldn't find 50k engineers in the US that would accept 50% pay? Of course they could, but they feel that they're getting more value by paying more.

diob 4y ago
Do you remember when the top tech companies colluded to suppress wages? I do. Read up on it, they agreed to basically not compete for talent.
Spooky23 4y ago
They are hiring employees they don’t need to take people off market.

londons_explore 4y ago

Unions might decrease lifetime earnings, while also killing off the industry entirely... For example, classically union heavy industries like coal mining... And weaving...

hotpotamus 4y ago
I don't see many ferriers or coopers these days either, but I doubt union membership had much to do with that. Interestingly, black lung cases have increased in the last decade https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html I wonder if that correlates with union membership?
diob 4y ago
Yeah, my dreams of coal mining and weaving have been dashed by these dang unions.
- alvah 4y ago
  It must have taken a special effort to miss the point by that much.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    They didn't miss the point, just pointed out that unionizing is not what killed those industries.
bigbillheck 4y ago
I can't seriously believe that the textile industry wouldn't have moved overseas regardless of whether or not US workers unionized. (And killing the coal mining industry can't be anything but a good thing)
woodruffw 4y ago
Of all the things that killed coal extraction in the US, I don't think unions were one of them.
mustyoshi 4y ago
Is the coal industry dead? In 2008 the US was producing more coal than it had ever before. Even in 2016 it was still above the peak production levels of the 1970s.

diob 4y ago

The business lead propaganda in the USA is insanely effective. Point to data, and folks still try to justify why unions bad (anecdotes, deflection, etc.). Point to overseas success, well, USA is exceptional wouldn't work here. Rather than argue, just ask them what would change their mind? Otherwise the line will always move.

planetsprite 4y ago
As goes the value-based conception of deservedness in America. Your worth == your net worth. Why should the capital owners, who are providing money and benefits to their employees cede further their assurance those employees are infinitely replicable? They are, aren't they, without the artifice of a union. In China there's the notion of the Mandate of Heaven, a philosophy that whoever is currently ruling is the ruler justified by god, evidenced by the fact that the universe, or god, has allowed that person to become the ruler. The general American capitalist philosophy applies this on an individual level. One's impoverishment or lack thereof is a justified realization of their inherent worth. If they were worth more, they wouldn't be employees, they'd be founders, calling the shots, right?
- mistrial9 4y ago
  maybe a psychological summary for adults involved, but no.. labor and business law is convoluted and many-times very specific, and you can win in court with either, presented competently. "make your fate"
hedora 4y ago
How does the behavior of European unions prove that the big national unions in the US aren't corrupt? Switching the US to be open shop would change my mind. This would allow people to easily switch away from or negotiate with abusive unions. The unions I have dealt with have universally been more abusive than my employers, to the point where employers would try to sneak unauthorized employee benefits through contract loopholes. In one case the union agrees to let the company hire non-union labor (with capped, low pay and benefits) to do the jobs of union employees with seniority that refused to work and could not be fired. If you think my repeated personal experiences with multiple national unions are all anecdotal outliers, then explain why wildcat strikes have become common in the US in recent years.

MichaelBurge 4y ago

What if the unions hire lawyers for negotiation, and so do the companies? Then everyone except the lawyers loses out. Unions need to pay lobbyists so politicians don't repeal the laws they use, lawyers to review any agreements with the companies, possibly decrease the pool of revenue available to be split between workers and management(say, if doing something new gets caught up in negotiations and they lose first-mover advantage), advertising campaigns to convince people that unions are good, etc. Depending on exact circumstances, they could be good for both companies and workers, or bad for both. I'm also skeptical that companies are so competent that we should model them as ideal agents optimizing for profit EV. There are plenty of bankrupt incompetent companies, and while the remainder are the product of "natural selection", they only need to be fit enough to survive and not true optimizers. It's entirely possible that a company could benefit from unions, but management would be too prideful about losing control.

pixl97 4y ago
Companies ready hire a huge number of lawyers and pay off a large number of lobbyist, especially at the large enterprise size. We already know the answer is you have less bargaining power and get paid less.

grandmczeb 4y ago

If putting my hand in a wood-chipper decreased lifetime earnings, why does my company tell me not to do it?

hotpotamus 4y ago
If you're a low-wage worker with workman's comp and decent insurance, it could very well increase your lifetime earnings. https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-148-errol-morris-9-25-2020/ https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-148-errol-morris-9-25-202... > Early in his career, Errol Morris read about a shocking series of alleged insurance crimes in a small town in Florida, which some referred to as “Nub City.” There were allegations that men and women were mutilating themselves — removing hands and feet — in order to exploit accidental dismemberment clauses in insurance policies, and collect money.

snapplebobapple 4y ago

Depends on if the lifetime earnings decrease was big enough to cover the myriad of other negative things having a unionized workforce does to a business, particularly in the ability to remove junk employees and to pivot when a new and better way of doing things for the current business line or a better line emerges.

fatnoah 4y ago

Unions aren't just about money. They're also about rules governing what work can be done and when. Sometimes this leads to absurd situations, but it also prevents someone hired and paid for one job from being forced to work unfavorable hours, or to do work that normally would be paid more.