3 ms·

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

by 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

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.