77 ms·

Unions can and do exist in right to work states. The point of a union is not job security. It's about giving workers collective power they may not otherwise ha

Unions can and do exist in right to work states. The point of a union is not job security. It's about giving workers collective power they may not otherwise have. Historically unions have been painted as extremely antagonistic towards companies in the United States, but there's no reason that has to be true. A well-run union recognizes that their survival is tied to the company's survival, and as long as both sides engage in good faith, they should reach an agreement that's mutually beneficial. To your point about job security, no one I know in unions wants to keep all employees no matter what. What people want is protection from being fired for no reason. Usually that means something like getting a PIP and six weeks to improve performance. Is that such an unreasonable ask? That way the employee has a chance to keep their job, and the company can potentially avoid the expense of hiring and training a new employee.

kingstoned 4y ago
The point of a union is not job security. It's about giving workers collective power they may not otherwise have. What would people do with this theoretical collective power? Probably job security combined with restrictions on work. Do as little as you can while being guaranteed a paycheck. What people want is protection from being fired for no reason. How can people be fired for no reason? There is always a reason, whether it's related to company's performance, worker productivity or overall economic conditions.
- realslimjd 4y ago
  I feel like you missed my point that it is not in a union's interest to protect low-performing workers. A union cannot survive without jobs, and union members are just as frustrated as anyone else when someone is not pulling their weight. To your point about labor restrictions, unions gave us two day weekends and forty hour weeks. Modern labor practices are almost entirely defined by things unions fought for and standardized. The restrictions we have on work now didn't nebulously appear from the goodwill of employers. People are absolutely fired for no reason all the time. Sometimes their boss is having a bad day. Maybe their manager is prejudiced against people wearing green shirts. Sometimes people are (illegally) fired for joining a union. People are not always rational, and that doesn't change between their work and personal lives.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    All of this is true but there are companies that were driven out of business due to unrealistic demands from their union. As you pointed out, humans are quite often irrational and there's no reason to think that unions will always act in a rational manner that protects workers from losing their job through employer bankruptcies. Certainly, it is the goal to prevent that from happening, but humans being humans, often don't see how a particular short-term goal can end up harming their long-term goals. Of course, most companies, no matter how profitable, will cry poverty to each union request that's going to have costs to the company, so an adversarial relationship builds, with both sides insisting the other is acting in bad faith. Plenty of times, it's true for both sides.
  - kingstoned 4y ago
    So according to you unions are rational, omnisciencet and benevolent agents, while entrepreneurs are dumb irrational idiots who will randomly fire people all the time for wearing a green shirt. To your point about labor restrictions, unions gave us two day weekends and forty hour weeks. Modern labor practices are almost entirely defined by things unions fought for and standardized. The restrictions we have on work now didn't nebulously appear from the goodwill of employers. What enabled more leisure and higher living standards for workers was harnessing efficient sources of energy, especially in the 19th century and creating machines to do a lot of hard work. Without efficient energy and machines, everything has to be done by humans, so reducing work hours means worse living standards. The fact that living standards were rising while cutting back on hours tells you there was something else doing the hard work and that was machines powered by efficient energy sources. That was the real enabler of leasure, cozy office work and high living standards.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > So according to you unions are rational, omnisciencet and benevolent agents, while entrepreneurs are dumb irrational idiots who will randomly fire people all the time for wearing a green shirt. Why so antagonistic? By the way getting antagonistic doesn't make your argument better, it just makes you look frustrated and sour. Using logical fallacies like false binaries also isn't helpful. The point isn't that one set is 'rational and good' and the other is 'frivolous and bad', the point is that in order for markets to work (labor is a market) there must be a even playing field so that parties can leverage their value for others without getting exploited. When you have a society setup like the USA, without a real safety net and where periods of unemployment lead to instability financially, personally, and healthcare-wise, then employees are not able to properly leverage their value. The proposal of 'work for me or your life falls apart' is pretty devastating to labor markets because it makes people settle for bad deals. Unions are one method of trying to level this, by saying 'if you try to make me work on a ledge and don't give me a harness, then we are all going to shut down your business and not let you hire someone more desperate to do it' then one person is able to leverage the actual value of labor to bargain with the employer.
- PavleMiha 4y ago
  On the other hand, why would people use their collective power to sink the company they work for? No company, no jobs. In reality the power has to be balanced between the two, and both parties need to act carefully and rationally.
  - uxp100 4y ago
    And in fact, sometimes I feel the power goes the other way a little bit. Unions are big boosters for industry in a way that can be negative for the public. So you’ve got “pro-business” politicians supporting some project (let’s say highway expansion) alongside “pro-labor” politicians. The glowing blue orb manufacturers agree with their unions that people need more glowing blue orbs. That’s in the case of a traditional trade union anyway, there are other models, and if there’s one big union that represents horseshoe workers (blacksmiths? Puddlers? Idk how a horseshoe is made I guess) and rubber tire manufacturers well, uh, they’ve got some things to discuss. Anyway, much ink has been used discussing this by people better informed than me, but yeah, I agree, it is nuanced.
trieste92 4y ago
> Usually that means something like getting a PIP and six weeks to improve performance. Is that such an unreasonable ask? Isn't this what parent took issue with? If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done?
- realslimjd 4y ago
  You can fire them after six weeks, which in the grand scheme of things is not that long. I've been places where it takes longer to get requirements back from clients.
- krainboltgreene 4y ago
  > If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done? The assumption with you guys is always three parts: 1. That the company actors know what good performance is, therefor they can determine underperformance 2. That underperformance is meaningful in the context (taking care of a sick kid for a month is underperformance, but not meaningful when the kid is no longer sick) 3. That the company actors are being truthful about the reason When in reality I know that company actors rarely understand good performance or thus underperformance, they rarely consider meaningfulness, and rarely are they actually telling the truth about the reason.
surement 4y ago
> The point of a union is not job security. It's about giving workers collective power they may not otherwise have. No, it's about giving workers currently employed by the company collective power. This means keeping potential employees out by setting a threshold for financial compensation or number of hours available to work. The victims here (unemployed and underemployed people) have no collective power and don't appear in data so they are ignored.

kingstoned 4y ago

The point of a union is not job security. It's about giving workers collective power they may not otherwise have. What would people do with this theoretical collective power? Probably job security combined with restrictions on work. Do as little as you can while being guaranteed a paycheck. What people want is protection from being fired for no reason. How can people be fired for no reason? There is always a reason, whether it's related to company's performance, worker productivity or overall economic conditions.

realslimjd 4y ago
I feel like you missed my point that it is not in a union's interest to protect low-performing workers. A union cannot survive without jobs, and union members are just as frustrated as anyone else when someone is not pulling their weight. To your point about labor restrictions, unions gave us two day weekends and forty hour weeks. Modern labor practices are almost entirely defined by things unions fought for and standardized. The restrictions we have on work now didn't nebulously appear from the goodwill of employers. People are absolutely fired for no reason all the time. Sometimes their boss is having a bad day. Maybe their manager is prejudiced against people wearing green shirts. Sometimes people are (illegally) fired for joining a union. People are not always rational, and that doesn't change between their work and personal lives.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  All of this is true but there are companies that were driven out of business due to unrealistic demands from their union. As you pointed out, humans are quite often irrational and there's no reason to think that unions will always act in a rational manner that protects workers from losing their job through employer bankruptcies. Certainly, it is the goal to prevent that from happening, but humans being humans, often don't see how a particular short-term goal can end up harming their long-term goals. Of course, most companies, no matter how profitable, will cry poverty to each union request that's going to have costs to the company, so an adversarial relationship builds, with both sides insisting the other is acting in bad faith. Plenty of times, it's true for both sides.
- kingstoned 4y ago
  So according to you unions are rational, omnisciencet and benevolent agents, while entrepreneurs are dumb irrational idiots who will randomly fire people all the time for wearing a green shirt. To your point about labor restrictions, unions gave us two day weekends and forty hour weeks. Modern labor practices are almost entirely defined by things unions fought for and standardized. The restrictions we have on work now didn't nebulously appear from the goodwill of employers. What enabled more leisure and higher living standards for workers was harnessing efficient sources of energy, especially in the 19th century and creating machines to do a lot of hard work. Without efficient energy and machines, everything has to be done by humans, so reducing work hours means worse living standards. The fact that living standards were rising while cutting back on hours tells you there was something else doing the hard work and that was machines powered by efficient energy sources. That was the real enabler of leasure, cozy office work and high living standards.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > So according to you unions are rational, omnisciencet and benevolent agents, while entrepreneurs are dumb irrational idiots who will randomly fire people all the time for wearing a green shirt. Why so antagonistic? By the way getting antagonistic doesn't make your argument better, it just makes you look frustrated and sour. Using logical fallacies like false binaries also isn't helpful. The point isn't that one set is 'rational and good' and the other is 'frivolous and bad', the point is that in order for markets to work (labor is a market) there must be a even playing field so that parties can leverage their value for others without getting exploited. When you have a society setup like the USA, without a real safety net and where periods of unemployment lead to instability financially, personally, and healthcare-wise, then employees are not able to properly leverage their value. The proposal of 'work for me or your life falls apart' is pretty devastating to labor markets because it makes people settle for bad deals. Unions are one method of trying to level this, by saying 'if you try to make me work on a ledge and don't give me a harness, then we are all going to shut down your business and not let you hire someone more desperate to do it' then one person is able to leverage the actual value of labor to bargain with the employer.
PavleMiha 4y ago
On the other hand, why would people use their collective power to sink the company they work for? No company, no jobs. In reality the power has to be balanced between the two, and both parties need to act carefully and rationally.
- uxp100 4y ago
  And in fact, sometimes I feel the power goes the other way a little bit. Unions are big boosters for industry in a way that can be negative for the public. So you’ve got “pro-business” politicians supporting some project (let’s say highway expansion) alongside “pro-labor” politicians. The glowing blue orb manufacturers agree with their unions that people need more glowing blue orbs. That’s in the case of a traditional trade union anyway, there are other models, and if there’s one big union that represents horseshoe workers (blacksmiths? Puddlers? Idk how a horseshoe is made I guess) and rubber tire manufacturers well, uh, they’ve got some things to discuss. Anyway, much ink has been used discussing this by people better informed than me, but yeah, I agree, it is nuanced.

trieste92 4y ago

> Usually that means something like getting a PIP and six weeks to improve performance. Is that such an unreasonable ask? Isn't this what parent took issue with? If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done?

realslimjd 4y ago
You can fire them after six weeks, which in the grand scheme of things is not that long. I've been places where it takes longer to get requirements back from clients.
krainboltgreene 4y ago
> If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done? The assumption with you guys is always three parts: 1. That the company actors know what good performance is, therefor they can determine underperformance 2. That underperformance is meaningful in the context (taking care of a sick kid for a month is underperformance, but not meaningful when the kid is no longer sick) 3. That the company actors are being truthful about the reason When in reality I know that company actors rarely understand good performance or thus underperformance, they rarely consider meaningfulness, and rarely are they actually telling the truth about the reason.

surement 4y ago

> The point of a union is not job security. It's about giving workers collective power they may not otherwise have. No, it's about giving workers currently employed by the company collective power. This means keeping potential employees out by setting a threshold for financial compensation or number of hours available to work. The victims here (unemployed and underemployed people) have no collective power and don't appear in data so they are ignored.