5 ms·

Employers often treat their employees as adversaries. Thus the need for unions in those situations... You appear to be placing blame for the situation on the p

Employers often treat their employees as adversaries. Thus the need for unions in those situations... You appear to be placing blame for the situation on the party with less power in the situation, the employee, rather than the one with more power, the employer. this is a bit silly!

WalterBright 4y ago
Consider the union negotiating tactics. They don't negotiate, they demand. They carry signs and verbally attack the company. They threaten. They offer nothing in return. It's entirely framed as win-lose by the union. How do they expect the company to want to deal with them? Consider how businesses negotiate. Each side offers something in return for better terms. They come to a mutually agreeable win-win solution. That's what I do when I've negotiated with employers. I frame it as a friendly win-win negotiation, and both parties go away pleased with the result.
- LightHugger 4y ago
  Uh, have you just not noticed employer tactics? They don't care about it being win-win. You clearly have extreme anti-union bias to the point you havent noticed how incredibly employee hostile the companies that unions form around are, to an absurd extent. It's gone so far that the magnitude of a win for the employer is so much higher than for the employee that the goal posts have shifted to absurdity. You're still putting the onus for improving the situation on the party with far, far less power. Which makes no sense.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    When I see a union offering win-win solutions, I will change my mind. I am not anti-union. I am anti the tactics they use. Unions are part of the free market. A union is a business that sells labor.
    - atoav 4y ago
      And companies are businesses that exploit labor to make profits. One creates value for many people, the other for few. The ethics on this one is not hard.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around.
        atoav 4y ago
        And if someone tells you these are the only options, thats how you know they are from the US.
        nickpp 4y ago
        Please feel free to suggest a 3rd option. I live in Europe and I don't know any.
      - satvikpendem 4y ago
        > exploit labor to make profits If you believe in the LTV, which many don't. Many instead believe in the subjective (market) theory of value.
        8note 4y ago
        It's the case only if you believe there's a transitive property to value, which has some evidence to it. You tend not to see somebody sell a gold watch for less than the gold that's in it. Especially so if there's profit being made on the watch
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        Sure, for physical goods that may be somewhat true, but LTV presupposes that labor itself has a value beyond what the market would pay, which does not seem to be the case, in capitalism or in other previous systems of mercantile trade.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Here's an example. Union says "we have ideas that will cut costs 10%. In exchange, we want half of that in the form of higher wages." Business says, "where do I sign?"
  - LightHugger 4y ago
    Uh, your thought process is operating on the level of what you as an individual can do. But as a result, you are seeing none of the systemic problems. While your thinking is probably individually beneficial, like that of a salmon knowing to swim upstream, this salmon has no way of addressing the dam that's being built upriver. Regardless of whether the dam is built or not, it is still best to do what you can to swim upriver. But it's better for the dam not to be built and ruin your habitat. But you're annoyed at other salmon trying to stop it, because they took a break from swimming upriver.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      Yoir post reads to me as a non sequitur. The parent mentioned a union making that deal, but you are talking about "what you as an individual can do" which doesn't seem to be what they're talking about, since they're explicitly talking about the union making a deal with the business.
  - 988747 4y ago
    Businesses have such cost-cutting ideas all the time, the problem is that most of those ideas involve firing people. If the deal is: "we will fire 20% of staff, but those who remain will get 5% raise" no union will agree to it.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Taking the position of being the costly solution is never a winning pitch.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      That is how you get rooted bureaucracies though. I'd rather be able to fire or get fired than sit through layers of bureaucracy simply because it's too difficult to fire people. I would know, I've been on both sides of the table.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > Consider how businesses negotiate With a highly trained management team and an HR department that is the friendly face to a highly trained legal department. You're either naive or full of hubris to think you're actually ending up with a win-win situation. Try getting the wording of a contract changed for example. Try proposing using your contract instead of theirs. Any contract you sign is in the company's favor to the full extent allowed by local law. The only thing that has ever changed that is labor negotiating as a team and with their own highly trained legal team. The reason you think things are win-win is because you've never had to go to court up against the contracts you've signed. > They offer nothing in return. They offer their labor in return. That's extremely valuable.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Try getting the wording of a contract changed I've gotten the wording of employment contracts changed. BTW, you're far more likely to get what you want by being nice than by threats. > you've never had to go to court up against the contracts you've signed Yeah, I have. And I won.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      You're far more likely to get what you want by having a well written contract. You may have gotten contract wording changed with a small company, but the Amazons of the world will not do that. And these are exactly the companies where labor needs unions so they can collectively bargain against a powerful and organized management and legal team. You simply don't have the resources as an individual. Being polite is always a good strategy but being nice would mean working for free. That would be very nice. Is that your approach? It's also not nice to take your employer to court. What happened to your be nice strategy there? Why did you threaten with legal action? It sounds like you can't even follow your own advice.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Being polite and nice certainly does not require capitulation. You can be nice, polite, and quite firm in what you want. Ceding things you don't care about helps, too. For example, Starbucks benefits include free college tuition. I'm never going back to college, so I'd be willing to trade that benefit for mo' money. I'm told time and again that lil' ol' me cannot negotiate. Yet I do it with department stores, doctors, dentists, car dealers, all sorts of "non-negotiable" contracts. Try it some time. I helped a friend recently negotiate a new car. The dealer started with a non-negotiable price. He settled for about 10% less. It was all very nice and polite and friendly, with lots of joking back and forth. We just made it clear the price had to come down or no deal.
- atoav 4y ago
  When a company tells a employer to ignore $SAFETY_CODE or to pretend $NORMAL_HUMAN_NEED does not exist, they do NOT negoitate. They tend to go all "my way or the highway" on these things. The making-demands-phase typically happens after employees and unions argued for a certain thing for years without any changes. You don't need to demand something if you just asked for it and they said "Yes, but it would be best for the company to do it that way" and you go like "alright, fair enough". If the thing you want is that agreeable, you'd be silly to put in the energy to protest. Companies are not the victims here, for that you just have to compare the groth of profits to the groth of median salary over the past years. Unions form when companies take too much. And yeah, unions can be a thorn in a companies flesh after they get active. There is one simple trick to avoid unions: treat your employees in a way they don't need an union to defend their interest.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benefits-and-perks/ https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...

WalterBright 4y ago

Consider the union negotiating tactics. They don't negotiate, they demand. They carry signs and verbally attack the company. They threaten. They offer nothing in return. It's entirely framed as win-lose by the union. How do they expect the company to want to deal with them? Consider how businesses negotiate. Each side offers something in return for better terms. They come to a mutually agreeable win-win solution. That's what I do when I've negotiated with employers. I frame it as a friendly win-win negotiation, and both parties go away pleased with the result.

LightHugger 4y ago
Uh, have you just not noticed employer tactics? They don't care about it being win-win. You clearly have extreme anti-union bias to the point you havent noticed how incredibly employee hostile the companies that unions form around are, to an absurd extent. It's gone so far that the magnitude of a win for the employer is so much higher than for the employee that the goal posts have shifted to absurdity. You're still putting the onus for improving the situation on the party with far, far less power. Which makes no sense.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  When I see a union offering win-win solutions, I will change my mind. I am not anti-union. I am anti the tactics they use. Unions are part of the free market. A union is a business that sells labor.
  - atoav 4y ago
    And companies are businesses that exploit labor to make profits. One creates value for many people, the other for few. The ethics on this one is not hard.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around.
      - atoav 4y ago
        And if someone tells you these are the only options, thats how you know they are from the US.
        nickpp 4y ago
        Please feel free to suggest a 3rd option. I live in Europe and I don't know any.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      > exploit labor to make profits If you believe in the LTV, which many don't. Many instead believe in the subjective (market) theory of value.
      - 8note 4y ago
        It's the case only if you believe there's a transitive property to value, which has some evidence to it. You tend not to see somebody sell a gold watch for less than the gold that's in it. Especially so if there's profit being made on the watch
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        Sure, for physical goods that may be somewhat true, but LTV presupposes that labor itself has a value beyond what the market would pay, which does not seem to be the case, in capitalism or in other previous systems of mercantile trade.
WalterBright 4y ago
Here's an example. Union says "we have ideas that will cut costs 10%. In exchange, we want half of that in the form of higher wages." Business says, "where do I sign?"
- LightHugger 4y ago
  Uh, your thought process is operating on the level of what you as an individual can do. But as a result, you are seeing none of the systemic problems. While your thinking is probably individually beneficial, like that of a salmon knowing to swim upstream, this salmon has no way of addressing the dam that's being built upriver. Regardless of whether the dam is built or not, it is still best to do what you can to swim upriver. But it's better for the dam not to be built and ruin your habitat. But you're annoyed at other salmon trying to stop it, because they took a break from swimming upriver.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Yoir post reads to me as a non sequitur. The parent mentioned a union making that deal, but you are talking about "what you as an individual can do" which doesn't seem to be what they're talking about, since they're explicitly talking about the union making a deal with the business.
- 988747 4y ago
  Businesses have such cost-cutting ideas all the time, the problem is that most of those ideas involve firing people. If the deal is: "we will fire 20% of staff, but those who remain will get 5% raise" no union will agree to it.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Taking the position of being the costly solution is never a winning pitch.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    That is how you get rooted bureaucracies though. I'd rather be able to fire or get fired than sit through layers of bureaucracy simply because it's too difficult to fire people. I would know, I've been on both sides of the table.
tchaffee 4y ago
> Consider how businesses negotiate With a highly trained management team and an HR department that is the friendly face to a highly trained legal department. You're either naive or full of hubris to think you're actually ending up with a win-win situation. Try getting the wording of a contract changed for example. Try proposing using your contract instead of theirs. Any contract you sign is in the company's favor to the full extent allowed by local law. The only thing that has ever changed that is labor negotiating as a team and with their own highly trained legal team. The reason you think things are win-win is because you've never had to go to court up against the contracts you've signed. > They offer nothing in return. They offer their labor in return. That's extremely valuable.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Try getting the wording of a contract changed I've gotten the wording of employment contracts changed. BTW, you're far more likely to get what you want by being nice than by threats. > you've never had to go to court up against the contracts you've signed Yeah, I have. And I won.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    You're far more likely to get what you want by having a well written contract. You may have gotten contract wording changed with a small company, but the Amazons of the world will not do that. And these are exactly the companies where labor needs unions so they can collectively bargain against a powerful and organized management and legal team. You simply don't have the resources as an individual. Being polite is always a good strategy but being nice would mean working for free. That would be very nice. Is that your approach? It's also not nice to take your employer to court. What happened to your be nice strategy there? Why did you threaten with legal action? It sounds like you can't even follow your own advice.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Being polite and nice certainly does not require capitulation. You can be nice, polite, and quite firm in what you want. Ceding things you don't care about helps, too. For example, Starbucks benefits include free college tuition. I'm never going back to college, so I'd be willing to trade that benefit for mo' money. I'm told time and again that lil' ol' me cannot negotiate. Yet I do it with department stores, doctors, dentists, car dealers, all sorts of "non-negotiable" contracts. Try it some time. I helped a friend recently negotiate a new car. The dealer started with a non-negotiable price. He settled for about 10% less. It was all very nice and polite and friendly, with lots of joking back and forth. We just made it clear the price had to come down or no deal.
atoav 4y ago
When a company tells a employer to ignore $SAFETY_CODE or to pretend $NORMAL_HUMAN_NEED does not exist, they do NOT negoitate. They tend to go all "my way or the highway" on these things. The making-demands-phase typically happens after employees and unions argued for a certain thing for years without any changes. You don't need to demand something if you just asked for it and they said "Yes, but it would be best for the company to do it that way" and you go like "alright, fair enough". If the thing you want is that agreeable, you'd be silly to put in the energy to protest. Companies are not the victims here, for that you just have to compare the groth of profits to the groth of median salary over the past years. Unions form when companies take too much. And yeah, unions can be a thorn in a companies flesh after they get active. There is one simple trick to avoid unions: treat your employees in a way they don't need an union to defend their interest.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benefits-and-perks/ https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...