9 ms·

As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.

nickpp 4y ago
Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal. Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters. So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
- Jotra7 4y ago
- krageon 4y ago
  And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.
  - nickpp 4y ago
    Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?
    - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
      Unions are kept in check by attrition of the companies they are associated with.
      - splistud 4y ago
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid of getting the union angry, as this is not the case something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot, at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose. That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.
      - nickpp 4y ago
        And unions are exactly that powerful. A strike can easily shut down a company, a town or a country. I do not see a similar power on the corporation's side. Firing everybody would just kill the corporation as well.
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        The data here seems to indicate otherwise https://www.epi.org/publication/latest-data-release-on-unionization-is-a-wake-up-call-to-lawmakers/ https://www.epi.org/publication/latest-data-release-on-union... https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-years-of-shrinking-union-membership-in-one-map https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-y... Now it's true I have not lived all over the world, but I have lived in numerous places in the U.S, in Denmark, and spend some time in Italy every now and then. I also lived in Germany as a kid, but I've never really seen these fearsome unions you are familiar with, and did I say again I am in Denmark? Even here it isn't like such a powerful organization. Certainly one can find historical instances of powerful unions, but they do not seem to exist now, and thus your analysis must be faulty somehow. If unions are naturally more powerful than the other forces of society their power should always increase and not decrease, but as the data linked above shows the opposite is the case. If you want people to accept your logic you will probably need to back it up with data, arguing about real world things like unions tend to bring forth such requirements.
        nickpp 4y ago
        In Europe I've seen airports and cities and even countries dead for weeks due to strikes. In my country I've seen union leaders become politicians and then in jail for corruption. In US I've seen evil laws (AB5) imposed on people by politicians (Lorena Gonzalez) owned by unions (Teamsters). But I am open to the possibility of mistakes in my logic and dfxm12 post above had some good points.
    - dfxm12 4y ago
      What is keeping Unions in check then? Poor media coverage: https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues Conservative judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME Right to work laws Corporations, like Apple, Amazon, etc. Even "The Most Pro-Union President You’ve Ever Seen" couldn't bring himself to side with the rail union. The sad part is despite this, even though he isn't the most pro union president, he might be up there. That is to say, our federal government in general is very pro corporate.
    - tareqak 4y ago
      The legislative and executive branches of the US government blocking the majority of rail workers from going ahead with a rail strike: https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-congress-d2ae4d3aecb27f176418518d977e69e1 https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-congress... .
    - bigbillheck 4y ago
      Your premises are unsound.
- bmicraft 4y ago
  Which is good because corporations aren't people. If company goes under its owner(s) arn't usually weeks away from being on the street.
  - nickpp 4y ago
    Aren't unions just as much "people" as corporations are? And corporation owners could very well be pension funds...
purple_ferret 4y ago
Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union? I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc. The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.
- sfteus 4y ago
  From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things: 1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high-level tech workers will never meet demand so they will simply be able to move to another company if needed without much friction. 2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company. 3) Many people also believe that both paying union dues, and a union negotiating for the "average" worker will lead to them making significantly less money. IE, say your company was split 75% junior/25% senior devs, and paid junior devs $75k and senior devs $300k. If the union put pressure on the employer to raise the minimum salary to $100k, then they believe that money will come out of the senior devs salaries (reducing it to ~$225k). I can say in my experience, the first point is at least somewhat true right now (I had no issues moving to a more senior and better paid job after my last company sold out). I personally think the sentiment of point #2 is interesting; I generally don't view this as "protecting" those who should be fired, and more view it as a public defender ensuring everyone receives legal representation, even if they are clearly guilty. I'd also just note that even I'm not blanket pro-union; Police unions are a prime example of what happens when unions consolidate too much power because they went decades without any pushback. I'd consider that an extreme outlier though.

Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal. Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters. So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.

Jotra7 4y ago
krageon 4y ago
And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.
- nickpp 4y ago
  Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?
  - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    Unions are kept in check by attrition of the companies they are associated with.
    - splistud 4y ago
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid of getting the union angry, as this is not the case something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot, at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose. That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.
    - nickpp 4y ago
      And unions are exactly that powerful. A strike can easily shut down a company, a town or a country. I do not see a similar power on the corporation's side. Firing everybody would just kill the corporation as well.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        The data here seems to indicate otherwise https://www.epi.org/publication/latest-data-release-on-unionization-is-a-wake-up-call-to-lawmakers/ https://www.epi.org/publication/latest-data-release-on-union... https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-years-of-shrinking-union-membership-in-one-map https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-y... Now it's true I have not lived all over the world, but I have lived in numerous places in the U.S, in Denmark, and spend some time in Italy every now and then. I also lived in Germany as a kid, but I've never really seen these fearsome unions you are familiar with, and did I say again I am in Denmark? Even here it isn't like such a powerful organization. Certainly one can find historical instances of powerful unions, but they do not seem to exist now, and thus your analysis must be faulty somehow. If unions are naturally more powerful than the other forces of society their power should always increase and not decrease, but as the data linked above shows the opposite is the case. If you want people to accept your logic you will probably need to back it up with data, arguing about real world things like unions tend to bring forth such requirements.
        nickpp 4y ago
        In Europe I've seen airports and cities and even countries dead for weeks due to strikes. In my country I've seen union leaders become politicians and then in jail for corruption. In US I've seen evil laws (AB5) imposed on people by politicians (Lorena Gonzalez) owned by unions (Teamsters). But I am open to the possibility of mistakes in my logic and dfxm12 post above had some good points.
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    What is keeping Unions in check then? Poor media coverage: https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues https://uniontrack.com/blog/media-depicts-labor-issues Conservative judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME Right to work laws Corporations, like Apple, Amazon, etc. Even "The Most Pro-Union President You’ve Ever Seen" couldn't bring himself to side with the rail union. The sad part is despite this, even though he isn't the most pro union president, he might be up there. That is to say, our federal government in general is very pro corporate.
  - tareqak 4y ago
    The legislative and executive branches of the US government blocking the majority of rail workers from going ahead with a rail strike: https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-congress-d2ae4d3aecb27f176418518d977e69e1 https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-congress... .
  - bigbillheck 4y ago
    Your premises are unsound.
bmicraft 4y ago
Which is good because corporations aren't people. If company goes under its owner(s) arn't usually weeks away from being on the street.
- nickpp 4y ago
  Aren't unions just as much "people" as corporations are? And corporation owners could very well be pension funds...

purple_ferret 4y ago

Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union? I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc. The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.

sfteus 4y ago
From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things: 1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high-level tech workers will never meet demand so they will simply be able to move to another company if needed without much friction. 2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company. 3) Many people also believe that both paying union dues, and a union negotiating for the "average" worker will lead to them making significantly less money. IE, say your company was split 75% junior/25% senior devs, and paid junior devs $75k and senior devs $300k. If the union put pressure on the employer to raise the minimum salary to $100k, then they believe that money will come out of the senior devs salaries (reducing it to ~$225k). I can say in my experience, the first point is at least somewhat true right now (I had no issues moving to a more senior and better paid job after my last company sold out). I personally think the sentiment of point #2 is interesting; I generally don't view this as "protecting" those who should be fired, and more view it as a public defender ensuring everyone receives legal representation, even if they are clearly guilty. I'd also just note that even I'm not blanket pro-union; Police unions are a prime example of what happens when unions consolidate too much power because they went decades without any pushback. I'd consider that an extreme outlier though.