6 ms·

I'm not trying to say everyone that got let go is a low performer or has poor personal skills. I've seen plenty of good employees fired for bad or no reason. I

by elif 4y ago

I'm not trying to say everyone that got let go is a low performer or has poor personal skills. I've seen plenty of good employees fired for bad or no reason. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that even working with a guillotine above my head feels preferable to having to pick up the slack of people coasting and not meeting their commitments.

vidarh 4y ago
If a union protects people who are not doing their job from being made to do it, that is an argument for chosing a different union not against unions in general.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  In the US, you don’t really have the luxury of picking a different union. This is one reason unions suck in the US.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    You do, sort of (though I get what you mean) even as an individual, even though it's less common and affects the benefits you get from being a member, and you may risk still paying dues to the recognised union (if there is one, and your state allows agency fees). At the larger scale, your choice is to try to convince your co-workers. The downside of joining a minority union / members only union is not that different in the US as elsewhere, in that you generally have no legal right to be treated as a bargaining agent or in the case of some such unions they explicitly don't even try get recognition. But even the US has examples of minority unions being voluntarily given some degree of representation: https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/12/uaw-volkswagen-organizing-policy-representation/18901197/ https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/12/uaw-volkswa...
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      So in other words… we have effective union monopolization in the US.
      - vidarh 4y ago
        Not all that much more so than in a substantial proportion of other countries with far more powerful unions, and which often have multiple unions represented in the same companies. Most places have thresholds to be met before an employer can be forced to recognise a given union. It's not unusual for that threshold to be 50% per unit and for people to still opt to stay members in a minority union, which you can in the US too. The main way the US distinguishes itself in terms of unionisation is by low union membership, and as such the lack of significant minority union locals in the US is more a factor of few people joining a union unless they'd be paying agency fees anyway.
- trashtester 4y ago
  A lot of years ago, before entering college, my father was working in an aluminium melting plant in western Norway for a year. Being young and fit, he was able to work quite fast. Shortly after starting, he was approached by the local Union bosses, and sternly told to slow down. Not only did he make everone else look bad, if people worked that much, that would lead to layoffs. Not wanting trouble with the Union, he and his pal switched to only working about 4 hours each night (it was usually night shifts) and then sleep the remaining 4 hours of the shift.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    It's not clear to me whether you see this as an argument for being part of that union or for picking another one. Protecting the workforce against expectations that might be unreasonable for many workers is an essential part of the functions unions serve. Your dad might have been happy to have worked faster and longer when he was young, but if he'd remained in that job he'd soon be happy the performance expectations were not set so high that he'd start struggling to meet them. Having grown up in Norway and now living in the UK, I massively prefer the work-life balance and workers protections high union participation has created in Norway over the UK (and the US is far worse than the UK in this respect).
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Pretty sure Jern og Metall (Metallurgy union) would not have accepted competition at that workplace at that time. :) > I massively prefer the work-life balance and workers protections high union participation has created in Norway over the UK Sure, though it comes at a pretty significant cost in terms of efficiency and of the ability of the more productive part of the workforce to generate income for themselves. Over time, this kind of setup tends to lead to loss of competitiveness, often resulting in fewer jobs / layoffs, lower salaries or to requiring the rest of society to pay subsidies, trade barriers and/or for consumers to pay more for their products. Case in point would be Norwegian agricultural unions. And maybe worst of all, a society dominated by unions may cause some of the most productive citizens to seek better opportunities abroad ;)
maxehmookau 4y ago
> I guess what I'm trying to say, is that even working with a guillotine above my head feels preferable to having to pick up the slack of people coasting and not meeting their commitments. Really? I'd far rather not have a guillotine above my head if the trade-off is a few lazy colleagues. Why should that be my problem?
fzeroracer 4y ago
I mean, the current situation is that you get to work with a guillotine above your head and pick up the slack of people coasting because they can suck up to upper management and puff up their work better than you. Or worse, they lay off the people that did the work, promote the slackers and then you're doing 3x the work for 1x the pay.
- soco 4y ago
  Which means that the slackers are better at networking and whatnot, exactly what the OP was recommending as alternative to unionizing. Isn't it ironic, slackers winning either way. Or maybe the slackers-based argument isn't that sound?
nicoburns 4y ago
Why do you associate unions with people coasting and not meeting their commitments? For example, two unions striking here in UK recently have teacher and nurse unions. They’re some of the hardest working professions I’ve seen, but they get compensated poorly for it, and in the case of nurses they have to work ridiculously long and busy shifts because they are severely understaffed. Unions have a place for fighting against unfair dismissals of an individual, but they are primarily for when everyone is being treated badly.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Why do you associate unions with people coasting and not meeting their commitments? American public sector unions are cartoonishly bad. Recent example from San Francisco. Fourth grader hasn’t learned math in six months. Their math teacher had a concussion and can’t work. The substitute doesn’t teach math. (?!?) The original teacher can’t be replaced. (They deserve disability, but students deserve instruction.) Substitutes must be drawn from a list, on which there were two options, and the other person didn’t want to do it. So students get babysat while their peers learn math. Because every stopgap, including another teacher dropping in, or a parent volunteering, or hiring an off-list sub or even temp, or telling the sub they have hired to knock it off, it’s grade school math, they can probably find a decent YouTube series, is contractually prohibited.

by elif 4y ago

vidarh 4y ago

If a union protects people who are not doing their job from being made to do it, that is an argument for chosing a different union not against unions in general.

Robotbeat 4y ago
In the US, you don’t really have the luxury of picking a different union. This is one reason unions suck in the US.
- vidarh 4y ago
  You do, sort of (though I get what you mean) even as an individual, even though it's less common and affects the benefits you get from being a member, and you may risk still paying dues to the recognised union (if there is one, and your state allows agency fees). At the larger scale, your choice is to try to convince your co-workers. The downside of joining a minority union / members only union is not that different in the US as elsewhere, in that you generally have no legal right to be treated as a bargaining agent or in the case of some such unions they explicitly don't even try get recognition. But even the US has examples of minority unions being voluntarily given some degree of representation: https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/12/uaw-volkswagen-organizing-policy-representation/18901197/ https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/12/uaw-volkswa...
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    So in other words… we have effective union monopolization in the US.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Not all that much more so than in a substantial proportion of other countries with far more powerful unions, and which often have multiple unions represented in the same companies. Most places have thresholds to be met before an employer can be forced to recognise a given union. It's not unusual for that threshold to be 50% per unit and for people to still opt to stay members in a minority union, which you can in the US too. The main way the US distinguishes itself in terms of unionisation is by low union membership, and as such the lack of significant minority union locals in the US is more a factor of few people joining a union unless they'd be paying agency fees anyway.
trashtester 4y ago
A lot of years ago, before entering college, my father was working in an aluminium melting plant in western Norway for a year. Being young and fit, he was able to work quite fast. Shortly after starting, he was approached by the local Union bosses, and sternly told to slow down. Not only did he make everone else look bad, if people worked that much, that would lead to layoffs. Not wanting trouble with the Union, he and his pal switched to only working about 4 hours each night (it was usually night shifts) and then sleep the remaining 4 hours of the shift.
- vidarh 4y ago
  It's not clear to me whether you see this as an argument for being part of that union or for picking another one. Protecting the workforce against expectations that might be unreasonable for many workers is an essential part of the functions unions serve. Your dad might have been happy to have worked faster and longer when he was young, but if he'd remained in that job he'd soon be happy the performance expectations were not set so high that he'd start struggling to meet them. Having grown up in Norway and now living in the UK, I massively prefer the work-life balance and workers protections high union participation has created in Norway over the UK (and the US is far worse than the UK in this respect).
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Pretty sure Jern og Metall (Metallurgy union) would not have accepted competition at that workplace at that time. :) > I massively prefer the work-life balance and workers protections high union participation has created in Norway over the UK Sure, though it comes at a pretty significant cost in terms of efficiency and of the ability of the more productive part of the workforce to generate income for themselves. Over time, this kind of setup tends to lead to loss of competitiveness, often resulting in fewer jobs / layoffs, lower salaries or to requiring the rest of society to pay subsidies, trade barriers and/or for consumers to pay more for their products. Case in point would be Norwegian agricultural unions. And maybe worst of all, a society dominated by unions may cause some of the most productive citizens to seek better opportunities abroad ;)

maxehmookau 4y ago

> I guess what I'm trying to say, is that even working with a guillotine above my head feels preferable to having to pick up the slack of people coasting and not meeting their commitments. Really? I'd far rather not have a guillotine above my head if the trade-off is a few lazy colleagues. Why should that be my problem?

fzeroracer 4y ago

I mean, the current situation is that you get to work with a guillotine above your head and pick up the slack of people coasting because they can suck up to upper management and puff up their work better than you. Or worse, they lay off the people that did the work, promote the slackers and then you're doing 3x the work for 1x the pay.

soco 4y ago
Which means that the slackers are better at networking and whatnot, exactly what the OP was recommending as alternative to unionizing. Isn't it ironic, slackers winning either way. Or maybe the slackers-based argument isn't that sound?

nicoburns 4y ago

Why do you associate unions with people coasting and not meeting their commitments? For example, two unions striking here in UK recently have teacher and nurse unions. They’re some of the hardest working professions I’ve seen, but they get compensated poorly for it, and in the case of nurses they have to work ridiculously long and busy shifts because they are severely understaffed. Unions have a place for fighting against unfair dismissals of an individual, but they are primarily for when everyone is being treated badly.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Why do you associate unions with people coasting and not meeting their commitments? American public sector unions are cartoonishly bad. Recent example from San Francisco. Fourth grader hasn’t learned math in six months. Their math teacher had a concussion and can’t work. The substitute doesn’t teach math. (?!?) The original teacher can’t be replaced. (They deserve disability, but students deserve instruction.) Substitutes must be drawn from a list, on which there were two options, and the other person didn’t want to do it. So students get babysat while their peers learn math. Because every stopgap, including another teacher dropping in, or a parent volunteering, or hiring an off-list sub or even temp, or telling the sub they have hired to knock it off, it’s grade school math, they can probably find a decent YouTube series, is contractually prohibited.