5 ms·

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

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 ;)
  - vidarh 4y ago
    > Pretty sure Jern og Metall (Metallurgy union) would not have accepted competition at that workplace at that time. :) While there have at times been overzealous union people and I obviously can't know the conditions specifically at your dads old workplace, closed shops have typically been far more unusual in Norway than e.g. in the US, and the few attempts there have been have increasingly faced legal opposition and are now considered illegal in part based on interpretation of the freedom of association in Council of Europe's social charter from the 1960s. The main exception in the past have been for employees of the unions themselves, and even there closed shops became unusual a long time ago. But of course you won't make many friends at a workplace if you actively place their working conditions and employment at risk. > 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. Health and safety and the general wellbeing of workers tends to come at a cost, yes, it doesn't come from nothing. The question is not whether or not to do so - not a single country in the world allow employers free reign in deciding workers conditions - but where to draw the line. So then you have a choice of how much of your own well-being you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of maximising profits for someone else. Of course there is a point beyond which pushing working conditions and salaries up becomes net detrimental. But given Norway tend to rank near the top on almost all quality of life metrics, it does not seem Norway has hit it (and in case you drag up oil: Denmark and Sweden tend to rank equally well) > 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. Come to the UK and experience the life of an average worker here and see how fucked up their situation is compared to the average Norwegian, and see if you consider the trade-off worthwhile. Høyre would be considered far-left extremists by UK standards, with policies in their program more radical than what Corbyn proposed (they support more generous parental leave policies for example, and Solberg stood up for continued government ownership policies that'd see her branded as a communist here). And we live the result. The UK tends to rank well below the Scandinavian countries on most quality of life metrics. > And maybe worst of all, a society dominated by unions may cause some of the most productive citizens to seek better opportunities abroad ;) I didn't leave for the salary, and I stayed for family reasons. We need to earn far more here for the same standard of living as in Norway because we need to compensate for a welfare system that is far less generous, despite the fact we on average work far longer hours. Yet the average worker here earns less than in Norway. For me, at a far higher salary than average, it's close to a toss up, but had I been on an average salary I'd be back in Norway in a heartbeat rather than put up with the shitty conditions most people here deal with. For my part, I intend to leave the UK well before I retire, because while money can compensate for the direct impact on me personally, it can't compensate for the negative effect on the society surrounding me.

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 ;)
- vidarh 4y ago
  > Pretty sure Jern og Metall (Metallurgy union) would not have accepted competition at that workplace at that time. :) While there have at times been overzealous union people and I obviously can't know the conditions specifically at your dads old workplace, closed shops have typically been far more unusual in Norway than e.g. in the US, and the few attempts there have been have increasingly faced legal opposition and are now considered illegal in part based on interpretation of the freedom of association in Council of Europe's social charter from the 1960s. The main exception in the past have been for employees of the unions themselves, and even there closed shops became unusual a long time ago. But of course you won't make many friends at a workplace if you actively place their working conditions and employment at risk. > 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. Health and safety and the general wellbeing of workers tends to come at a cost, yes, it doesn't come from nothing. The question is not whether or not to do so - not a single country in the world allow employers free reign in deciding workers conditions - but where to draw the line. So then you have a choice of how much of your own well-being you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of maximising profits for someone else. Of course there is a point beyond which pushing working conditions and salaries up becomes net detrimental. But given Norway tend to rank near the top on almost all quality of life metrics, it does not seem Norway has hit it (and in case you drag up oil: Denmark and Sweden tend to rank equally well) > 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. Come to the UK and experience the life of an average worker here and see how fucked up their situation is compared to the average Norwegian, and see if you consider the trade-off worthwhile. Høyre would be considered far-left extremists by UK standards, with policies in their program more radical than what Corbyn proposed (they support more generous parental leave policies for example, and Solberg stood up for continued government ownership policies that'd see her branded as a communist here). And we live the result. The UK tends to rank well below the Scandinavian countries on most quality of life metrics. > And maybe worst of all, a society dominated by unions may cause some of the most productive citizens to seek better opportunities abroad ;) I didn't leave for the salary, and I stayed for family reasons. We need to earn far more here for the same standard of living as in Norway because we need to compensate for a welfare system that is far less generous, despite the fact we on average work far longer hours. Yet the average worker here earns less than in Norway. For me, at a far higher salary than average, it's close to a toss up, but had I been on an average salary I'd be back in Norway in a heartbeat rather than put up with the shitty conditions most people here deal with. For my part, I intend to leave the UK well before I retire, because while money can compensate for the direct impact on me personally, it can't compensate for the negative effect on the society surrounding me.