4 ms·

The Union sets the employees and the business up as adversaries and guarantees that there will be a contract negotiation. If you know that you will be in a knoc

by n8cpdx 4y ago

The Union sets the employees and the business up as adversaries and guarantees that there will be a contract negotiation. If you know that you will be in a knock-down drag-out fight every time the contact is renegotiated, why would you ever give a single solitary inch that you’re not forced to? The business is always n days away from another strike negotiation because that is the entire reason the union exists (to threaten strikes). I don’t understand why people expect labor to be able to play hardball while also trying to benefit from a cooperative relationship with the adversarial partner.

iso1631 4y ago
employees and the business are adversaries without a union. The business is always n days away from an employee leaving for better terms elsewhere A union meanwhile has a strong incentive to keep the company viable, otherwise they have a lot of out of work members
WeylandYutani 4y ago
It would be so much easier if those damn peasants would just shut up and follow orders. Look we know why unions got started and the human condition hasn't changed. There are people out there who would reintroduce child labour if they could get away with it. Guess who makes sure that they can't?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Legislators.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Clearly not based on Iowa and Arkansas legislators.
whitemary 4y ago
To put my cards on the table, I am a Marxist. I also agree with every part of your comment. This is why (disciplined) Marxists oppose the NLRB and other aspects of Americanized union arrangements, and it's why we support right-to-work. The NLRB and the slew of anti-labor laws enacted in the US in the late forties have effectively weakened unions to the point that they cannot fight for anything without navigating the NLRB's bureaucratic maze of anti-labor regulations. Realize these laws were enacted in direct response to soldiers returning from WW2 and not taking shit from anybody. They made demands, fought for them, and won, and capital passed these laws in response. So...the question now becomes: How do you feel about illegal wildcat strikes? Would you support abolishment of the NLRB? Would you support reversal of the Taft Hartley act? Which side are you actually on?
- fallingknife 4y ago
  I'm pretty much the opposite of a marxist, but I absolutely support the abolishment of the NLRB and the legalization of all otherwise legal labor negotiation tactics as freedom of association. If there are critical professions that we don't want to strike, then their employer can negotiate that as part of their contract in exchange for higher pay.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    All the more reason to encourage wildcat strikes
wolrah 4y ago
> The Union sets the employees and the business up as adversaries and guarantees that there will be a contract negotiation. > I don’t understand why people expect labor to be able to play hardball while also trying to benefit from a cooperative relationship with the adversarial partner. I don't understand why people think it's not an adversarial relationship without a union. The workers are trying to get the most value for their labor, the company wants to get the most labor for its money. The difference is without a union the company has more power than you do. Outside of the smallest businesses, most individual workers are disposable as far as the company is concerned. Their duties will be picked up by other employees and there's no rush to replace them. The company won't be substantially harmed by losing one worker, for the most part. There are of course exceptions, generally in small organizations or specialized skillsets, where individuals can be extremely hard to replace, but those cases are not the norm. On the flip side most workers who lose their job have an immediate problem. Almost 2/3 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose their job they have at most a few weeks before they're missing payments. No longer having a job with no immediate prospect to replace it poses an imminent threat to the stability of their life. This gives employers a massive amount of leverage to push for the absolute minimum they can get away with before employees start saying "I'd rather starve", while employees have little to push back with. A union attempts to balance the scales by turning the workforce in to a combined threat. No longer is the company negotiating against an individual, it's one or more entire classes of workers that they stand to lose and have to replace if they don't come to an agreement.

by n8cpdx 4y ago

iso1631 4y ago

employees and the business are adversaries without a union. The business is always n days away from an employee leaving for better terms elsewhere A union meanwhile has a strong incentive to keep the company viable, otherwise they have a lot of out of work members

WeylandYutani 4y ago

It would be so much easier if those damn peasants would just shut up and follow orders. Look we know why unions got started and the human condition hasn't changed. There are people out there who would reintroduce child labour if they could get away with it. Guess who makes sure that they can't?

sokoloff 4y ago
Legislators.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Clearly not based on Iowa and Arkansas legislators.

whitemary 4y ago

To put my cards on the table, I am a Marxist. I also agree with every part of your comment. This is why (disciplined) Marxists oppose the NLRB and other aspects of Americanized union arrangements, and it's why we support right-to-work. The NLRB and the slew of anti-labor laws enacted in the US in the late forties have effectively weakened unions to the point that they cannot fight for anything without navigating the NLRB's bureaucratic maze of anti-labor regulations. Realize these laws were enacted in direct response to soldiers returning from WW2 and not taking shit from anybody. They made demands, fought for them, and won, and capital passed these laws in response. So...the question now becomes: How do you feel about illegal wildcat strikes? Would you support abolishment of the NLRB? Would you support reversal of the Taft Hartley act? Which side are you actually on?

fallingknife 4y ago
I'm pretty much the opposite of a marxist, but I absolutely support the abolishment of the NLRB and the legalization of all otherwise legal labor negotiation tactics as freedom of association. If there are critical professions that we don't want to strike, then their employer can negotiate that as part of their contract in exchange for higher pay.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  All the more reason to encourage wildcat strikes

wolrah 4y ago

> The Union sets the employees and the business up as adversaries and guarantees that there will be a contract negotiation. > I don’t understand why people expect labor to be able to play hardball while also trying to benefit from a cooperative relationship with the adversarial partner. I don't understand why people think it's not an adversarial relationship without a union. The workers are trying to get the most value for their labor, the company wants to get the most labor for its money. The difference is without a union the company has more power than you do. Outside of the smallest businesses, most individual workers are disposable as far as the company is concerned. Their duties will be picked up by other employees and there's no rush to replace them. The company won't be substantially harmed by losing one worker, for the most part. There are of course exceptions, generally in small organizations or specialized skillsets, where individuals can be extremely hard to replace, but those cases are not the norm. On the flip side most workers who lose their job have an immediate problem. Almost 2/3 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose their job they have at most a few weeks before they're missing payments. No longer having a job with no immediate prospect to replace it poses an imminent threat to the stability of their life. This gives employers a massive amount of leverage to push for the absolute minimum they can get away with before employees start saying "I'd rather starve", while employees have little to push back with. A union attempts to balance the scales by turning the workforce in to a combined threat. No longer is the company negotiating against an individual, it's one or more entire classes of workers that they stand to lose and have to replace if they don't come to an agreement.