5 ms·

Honestly curious - is there any available data that demonstrates Unions are a net-benefit in modern times? Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and t

by Alupis 4y ago

Honestly curious - is there any available data that demonstrates Unions are a net-benefit in modern times? Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and the struggles they went through decades ago to achieve sane, safe, rewarding working conditions. What is left to fight for? In the past couple years, we have had story after story of Unions abusing power and harming companies and the public in the process. Is there good-doing I'm missing? Take Starbucks for example - already known for higher-than-average wages, college tuition sponsorship programs, management tracks and more - what is left to fight for? It's still nearly zero-skilled labor at the end of the day.

shrimp_emoji 4y ago
At minimum, you can argue it's game theoretical insurance. If Starbucks is so magnanimous towards their employees today, they may not be that way tomorrow. Corporate advocates for itself. Unions advocate for the employees. Ideally, they strike a balance so that nobody's satisfied and the best compromise is reached. Discarding unions leaves the door open for an imbalance of corporate power. (And, since corporations tend toward monopoly these days, that's a lot of corporate power.)
VHRanger 4y ago
There sure is! Here's a recent review: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 It's a pretty consistent finding among labor economics researchers that firms have monopsony power over workers. > What's left to fight for? The issue isnt whether they're well paid according to your subjective criteria. It's the ratio between how much the worker is paid and how much they produce for the firm. I talk about the "bargaining power ratio" concept here[1], but the microeconomics 201 concept is the ratio between marginal product of labor and pay can be thought of as the bargaining power ratio. If across the board workers have a low ratio, then they have a systematically low bargaining power, and unions would improve that. [1] https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hire-a-real-estate-agent/ https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hi...
- Alupis 4y ago
  I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out. I'm also not sure we can be confident that most agree these are problems at all - if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company, you are too easily replaced. The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no? Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check?
  - GaryNumanVevo 4y ago
    You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point with no evidence to support it: > Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check? Is this just an elaborate sealioning attempt?
    - slackdog 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - undersuit 4y ago
        What insult?
        slackdog 4y ago
        [flagged]
        undersuit 4y ago
        Sealioning is an action. They are not being called a sea lion. This accusation is a insult?
dfxm12 4y ago
I think you're reading biased publications if they failed to report on OSHA violations in Amazon warehouses (which are so bad, the DOJ had to step in), or about starbucks workers' issues around scheduling, firings, etc. You don't have to rely on articles though, maybe there's a Starbucks or other place near you that's in the midst of unionization. If so, go talk to the people involved. In the general sense, according to the DOL, unionized workers earn more than non-unionized workers, have more paid sick leave, are more likely to take vacation days, have better retirement plans, better scheduling, etc.: https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/union-advantage#:~:text=Unions%20raise%20wages%20for%20all,%241%2C216%2Fweek https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/union-advantage#:~:te...). Also, the fact is, unionization is a right, and it is illegal to fire workers for trying to unionize. Even if you think your employer is good, they can always be better and employers are not going to go out of their way to improve your working conditions, pay or benefits, and it's easier to fight for these as a group rather than alone.
ok_dad 4y ago
> What is left to fight for? - Non-competes being used for fast-food workers - Tech employees asked to work on military projects (at places that aren't traditionally servicing the military) - Minimum wages are still like $8 in some states, which is redicuous today - Companies only giving workers 29.5 hours of work when the minimum for "full time benefits" is 30 hours - Workers being fired for saying/doing things outside of work - Companies laying off massive numbers of employees without doing the legally-required steps - etc.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > Non-competes being used for fast-food workers Non-competes are illegal in California. This is a state or Federal issue, not a Union issue. > Tech employees asked to work on military projects (at places that aren't traditionally servicing the military) This is an ideology issue, and does not belong in the workplace at all. > Minimum wages are still like $8 in some states, which is redicuous today This story is much deeper than headlines would lead you to believe. For starters, the cost of living in majority of this country is low. Companies pay market rates, and the government sets minimum wages. > Companies only giving workers 29.5 hours of work when the minimum for "full time benefits" is 30 hours Most companies are not required to offer any benefits - full time or not. > Workers being fired for saying/doing things outside of work Yet we routinely cancel people for things they said 15 years ago... > Companies laying off massive numbers of employees without doing the legally-required steps And the courts take care of that already. Practically none, or none, of the issues you brought up can be solved by a Union.
  - quantumquetzal 4y ago
    My personal feelings on unions aside, I think some of these points a union COULD address. - Non-competes. Your rationale for non-competes is a non sequitur here. A union can represent workers and negotiate against signing non-competes if it is legal in a state, which would make a union desirable in that case. - Military contracts. Whether it belongs in the workplace is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are many tech employees who are averse to working on certain projects, and a union representing them would be able to negotiate what kind of contracts their members would work on. - Benefits - A union certainly is viable here. - Outside of work - a union would certainly be able to defend their members’ right to not be terminated for reasons irrelevant to their work, expressing their opinions on a controversial matter being one of those potential reasons.
lukewrites 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "harming companies and the public"; however we can come up with concrete examples of companies harming working people in the US. Wage theft in the US alone costs working people billions of dollars annually; by some estimates employers stealing from employees results in "three times as much economic loss as all other types of theft combined". (https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/2022/10/wage-theft-outpaces-all-other-theft-in-america/ https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/2022/10/wage-theft-outpaces...) EPI has done work around this: > in the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned wages https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/ https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...

by Alupis 4y ago

shrimp_emoji 4y ago

At minimum, you can argue it's game theoretical insurance. If Starbucks is so magnanimous towards their employees today, they may not be that way tomorrow. Corporate advocates for itself. Unions advocate for the employees. Ideally, they strike a balance so that nobody's satisfied and the best compromise is reached. Discarding unions leaves the door open for an imbalance of corporate power. (And, since corporations tend toward monopoly these days, that's a lot of corporate power.)

VHRanger 4y ago

There sure is! Here's a recent review: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522 It's a pretty consistent finding among labor economics researchers that firms have monopsony power over workers. > What's left to fight for? The issue isnt whether they're well paid according to your subjective criteria. It's the ratio between how much the worker is paid and how much they produce for the firm. I talk about the "bargaining power ratio" concept here[1], but the microeconomics 201 concept is the ratio between marginal product of labor and pay can be thought of as the bargaining power ratio. If across the board workers have a low ratio, then they have a systematically low bargaining power, and unions would improve that. [1] https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hire-a-real-estate-agent/ https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hi...

Alupis 4y ago
I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out. I'm also not sure we can be confident that most agree these are problems at all - if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company, you are too easily replaced. The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no? Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check?
- GaryNumanVevo 4y ago
  You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point with no evidence to support it: > Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check? Is this just an elaborate sealioning attempt?
  - slackdog 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - undersuit 4y ago
      What insult?
      - slackdog 4y ago
        [flagged]
        undersuit 4y ago
        Sealioning is an action. They are not being called a sea lion. This accusation is a insult?

dfxm12 4y ago

I think you're reading biased publications if they failed to report on OSHA violations in Amazon warehouses (which are so bad, the DOJ had to step in), or about starbucks workers' issues around scheduling, firings, etc. You don't have to rely on articles though, maybe there's a Starbucks or other place near you that's in the midst of unionization. If so, go talk to the people involved. In the general sense, according to the DOL, unionized workers earn more than non-unionized workers, have more paid sick leave, are more likely to take vacation days, have better retirement plans, better scheduling, etc.: https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/union-advantage#:~:text=Unions%20raise%20wages%20for%20all,%241%2C216%2Fweek https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/union-advantage#:~:te...). Also, the fact is, unionization is a right, and it is illegal to fire workers for trying to unionize. Even if you think your employer is good, they can always be better and employers are not going to go out of their way to improve your working conditions, pay or benefits, and it's easier to fight for these as a group rather than alone.

ok_dad 4y ago

> What is left to fight for? - Non-competes being used for fast-food workers - Tech employees asked to work on military projects (at places that aren't traditionally servicing the military) - Minimum wages are still like $8 in some states, which is redicuous today - Companies only giving workers 29.5 hours of work when the minimum for "full time benefits" is 30 hours - Workers being fired for saying/doing things outside of work - Companies laying off massive numbers of employees without doing the legally-required steps - etc.

Alupis 4y ago
> Non-competes being used for fast-food workers Non-competes are illegal in California. This is a state or Federal issue, not a Union issue. > Tech employees asked to work on military projects (at places that aren't traditionally servicing the military) This is an ideology issue, and does not belong in the workplace at all. > Minimum wages are still like $8 in some states, which is redicuous today This story is much deeper than headlines would lead you to believe. For starters, the cost of living in majority of this country is low. Companies pay market rates, and the government sets minimum wages. > Companies only giving workers 29.5 hours of work when the minimum for "full time benefits" is 30 hours Most companies are not required to offer any benefits - full time or not. > Workers being fired for saying/doing things outside of work Yet we routinely cancel people for things they said 15 years ago... > Companies laying off massive numbers of employees without doing the legally-required steps And the courts take care of that already. Practically none, or none, of the issues you brought up can be solved by a Union.
- quantumquetzal 4y ago
  My personal feelings on unions aside, I think some of these points a union COULD address. - Non-competes. Your rationale for non-competes is a non sequitur here. A union can represent workers and negotiate against signing non-competes if it is legal in a state, which would make a union desirable in that case. - Military contracts. Whether it belongs in the workplace is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are many tech employees who are averse to working on certain projects, and a union representing them would be able to negotiate what kind of contracts their members would work on. - Benefits - A union certainly is viable here. - Outside of work - a union would certainly be able to defend their members’ right to not be terminated for reasons irrelevant to their work, expressing their opinions on a controversial matter being one of those potential reasons.

lukewrites 4y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "harming companies and the public"; however we can come up with concrete examples of companies harming working people in the US. Wage theft in the US alone costs working people billions of dollars annually; by some estimates employers stealing from employees results in "three times as much economic loss as all other types of theft combined". (https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/2022/10/wage-theft-outpaces-all-other-theft-in-america/ https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/2022/10/wage-theft-outpaces...) EPI has done work around this: > in the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned wages https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/ https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...