4 ms·

I don't think that's an accurate description of the history of the labour movement in the US. For one thing, it's been around for quite a bit longer than 'nearl

by pvg 4y ago

I don't think that's an accurate description of the history of the labour movement in the US. For one thing, it's been around for quite a bit longer than 'nearly a century'. Over that almost-century, labourers have been completely rolled by people who own capital 8 hour work day, not child labour, worker safety, etc, etc, etc A union is basically a 2 step plan - first, identify the person willing to pay you the most. Second, pick a fight with them. This might be a locally OK strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#National_Master_Freight_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#National_Master_Fr...

roenxi 4y ago
> 8 hour work day, not child labour, worker safety, etc, etc, etc 1. That is a list of issues that have legal complications. That goes to my core point - organising to effect political change is far more effective than the typical union. All the workers on Straten Island would be just as politically effective whether they have union representation on their day job or not. 2. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the Hoffa article, but note that the union is called the teamster union. The obsolescence of draft animals and, by extension, the end of teamstering as a profession did more for their working conditions than the union did. 3. That list is made up of pretty pathetic achievements vs what the capitalists have managed. Wealthy capitalists have doubled and doubled their wealth in the same time. I'd work 10 hours a day in exchange for that sort of money. And the capitalists don't need to take risks they are uncomfortable with because they own the business. Not sure about the child labour thing. The unions won what they asked for, and it turned out what they were asking for wasn't very clever. They should have been asking for ways to build an ownership stake in businesses, taking some of the risk and reaping some of the reward.
- pvg 4y ago
  1. That is a list of issues that have legal complications. [...] organising to effect political What does that mean? Labor unions have always been political organizations. I feel like it's my core point that's being confirmed here - your description of labor movement history is pretty much wrong making the basis of your argument wrong. You didn't even address the national agreement I linked, a specific policy goal of one of the most influential US unions. It flatly contradicts your narrative about 'local changes'. It also happened 60 years ago.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    It means that anything labour unions achieved in their capacity as unions they could also have achieved in other means. Eg, in the linked article talks about a tussle between a National Labor Relations Board, struggles to get footholds in warehouses, elections by workers. None of those activities are particularly useful for achieving the things you listed as wins for unions. In fact, they are all distractions from achieving those outcomes. Seriously, you've got workers trying to organise against an entity that is more influential than they are, has more resource and controls their life for a fair chunk of their waking hours. And the most willing entity to give them money that the workers can find. The more they struggle against that the more they will lose, it is strategically untenable. Humans, as an advanced form of monkey, have an instinct when they get stressed that makes them band together and fight stuff. It feels really good. It also usually makes the people fighting worse off - the long term winners are usually the ones that best avoid fighting (particularly fighting more powerful and better organised companies). We've got about a century of experience in this field, the people who spent their time figuring out how to unionise aren't the ones who are seeing their living standards rapidly improve.

by pvg 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

> 8 hour work day, not child labour, worker safety, etc, etc, etc 1. That is a list of issues that have legal complications. That goes to my core point - organising to effect political change is far more effective than the typical union. All the workers on Straten Island would be just as politically effective whether they have union representation on their day job or not. 2. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the Hoffa article, but note that the union is called the teamster union. The obsolescence of draft animals and, by extension, the end of teamstering as a profession did more for their working conditions than the union did. 3. That list is made up of pretty pathetic achievements vs what the capitalists have managed. Wealthy capitalists have doubled and doubled their wealth in the same time. I'd work 10 hours a day in exchange for that sort of money. And the capitalists don't need to take risks they are uncomfortable with because they own the business. Not sure about the child labour thing. The unions won what they asked for, and it turned out what they were asking for wasn't very clever. They should have been asking for ways to build an ownership stake in businesses, taking some of the risk and reaping some of the reward.

pvg 4y ago
1. That is a list of issues that have legal complications. [...] organising to effect political What does that mean? Labor unions have always been political organizations. I feel like it's my core point that's being confirmed here - your description of labor movement history is pretty much wrong making the basis of your argument wrong. You didn't even address the national agreement I linked, a specific policy goal of one of the most influential US unions. It flatly contradicts your narrative about 'local changes'. It also happened 60 years ago.
- roenxi 4y ago
  It means that anything labour unions achieved in their capacity as unions they could also have achieved in other means. Eg, in the linked article talks about a tussle between a National Labor Relations Board, struggles to get footholds in warehouses, elections by workers. None of those activities are particularly useful for achieving the things you listed as wins for unions. In fact, they are all distractions from achieving those outcomes. Seriously, you've got workers trying to organise against an entity that is more influential than they are, has more resource and controls their life for a fair chunk of their waking hours. And the most willing entity to give them money that the workers can find. The more they struggle against that the more they will lose, it is strategically untenable. Humans, as an advanced form of monkey, have an instinct when they get stressed that makes them band together and fight stuff. It feels really good. It also usually makes the people fighting worse off - the long term winners are usually the ones that best avoid fighting (particularly fighting more powerful and better organised companies). We've got about a century of experience in this field, the people who spent their time figuring out how to unionise aren't the ones who are seeing their living standards rapidly improve.