17 ms·

Unions work

156 points by benwerd 3y ago

xnx 3y ago
I'm conflicted about unions, but it would be truly amazing if they brought us the 4-day work-week the way they got the 8-hour workday and weekends.
- timbit42 3y ago
  Have you looked into worker cooperatives? Ocean Spray is an example in the US. Mondragon is an example of one in Spain that has tens of thousands of workers and has existed for many decades.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - umrcumrcu4 3y ago
    This is not correct. Ocean Spray is not a cooperative of workers. It's a cooperative of private farmers.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    I wouldn't characterize any agricultural co-op like Ocean Spray as the same category as a worker co-op like Mondragon. There is a very distinct line between a farmer, who's an owner, and a farm worker, who handles most of the day-to-day operations.
    - timbit42 3y ago
      Yes, I know a company in my country where the store owners are in a cooperative but the employees are not.
  - hgdfhgfdhgdf 3y ago
    I suspect you are not familiar with farmer cooperatives. They are not employee cooperatives. They are corporatives of private farmers.
    - timbit42 3y ago
      I wasn't talking about farmer cooperatives. Worker cooperatives are owned and run by the workers, thus the name. Certainly some cooperatives are not worker cooperatives.
- morelisp 3y ago
  It's "they" because it's people in the past. If you want unions to win new rights today, you'd better start using "we".
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Weekends and 8 hour work week is not necessarily a good thing. There could be benefits to switching to 996 work week to compete better with China.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Benefits to whom?
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      Benefits to the country tend to also be benefits to the people of the country - or perhaps their children.
      - n4r9 3y ago
        What do you mean by "to the country". Faster economic growth?
        londons_explore 3y ago
        Faster economic growth tends to lead to happier citizens. In fact, there is a philosophical school of thought that shows that happiness isn't related to the environment one lives in, but the improvement that one sees through one's lifetime. Economic growth can deliver that.
        mostlysimilar 3y ago
        Unfortunately all of that improvement is concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy.
        n4r9 3y ago
        > Faster economic growth tends to lead to happier citizens. What's the evidence for this?
        phone8675309 3y ago
- londons_explore 3y ago
  A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay cut - you'd just have to have the kids share a bedroom rather than having one each and a guest room. Downside: Those on a 4 day workweek really struggle to get promoted to senior positions.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almost half a century [3]). If a 4 day week is codified into labor law and regulation, there is no game theory consideration vs some orgs with 4 day weeks competing with those with 5. Would you work 6 days a week today (for example)? Probably not, unless you're an outlier of some sort, and you don't see many orgs with a mandatory 6 day work week (because they wouldn't be able to retain talent). This is about pulling a policy ratchet to reduce the work week at scale for everyone, because the productivity already exists (it's just been funneled to the top wealthiest population, traditionally). "It always seems impossible until it's done." [1] https://www.4dayweek.com/ https://www.4dayweek.com/ | https://www.4dayweek.com/research https://www.4dayweek.com/research [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week? Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40? It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth. There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs. It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant). If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
- gumby 3y ago
  I built my house using union labor. Having seen the quality of welds from some non-union welders it was a no brainer. Overall quality of the rest of the work (carpentry, plastering everything) was worth it.
  - VancouverMan 3y ago
    Is there something that such unions in your area do to ensure that a worker's skill and ability matter far more than, say, who their relatives happen to be?
    - gumby 3y ago
      I don't know what it's like in Vancouver, but I have lived in Massachusetts and there it's not really a union issue: the corruption is equally present in, say, government (e.g. until recently there was a whole county all of whose land had been taken away but that remained solely so jobs like sheriff, bailiff etc could be handed out to relatives in cronies. Anything with a large flow of money (e.g. the Big Dig) gets openly looted. I've been told the same is true in Chicago, but I don't know directly. As far as the unions go, indeed, the lack of seriousness about the work is how, for example, the Ted Williams tunnel killed people, with no repercussions. OTOH what passes for corruption in California, where I live now, would make an east coast politician laugh. Certainly in the trades (welding in particular, but all sorts of construction I needed) the quality of work was top notch. And why not? In construction, at least, there is no reason to use union if you don't want to and most don't, which leads to the the shitty quality of residential construction (there should be more of it but that's another issue). Perhaps one thing is regulation. We once bought a pressure vessel that arrived with a small ding (if bad, it's an opportunity for an explosion). We called the pressure vessel unit in Oakland and someone arrived in 45 minutes which means he'd dropped anything else and and hopped into his car as soon as we hung up the phone. Even before he arrived we got an annoyed call from the mfr (as it turned out all was well...but the pressure vessel unit wanted to see for themselves). While he was there we showed him a piece done by a former contractor who had not been able to produce the union tickets. We had fired them because the work was safety critical (high pressure steam is no joke) and the contractor was suing us. One look at the piece and he yanked out his phone. Let's just say later that day the contractor's lawyer couriered over a document cancelling the lawsuit, a cashier's check for money already paid, and a request that we not countersue. Those guys are not fucking around.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Although unions fought for a long time for 8 hour work days it seems the biggest push came after Ford switched to 8 hour days (and doubled pay) and saw productivity and profits rise. It’s hard to give all the credit to any one group.
- tim333 3y ago
  Regulation on work hours, holidays and the like is better handled by government legislation on the whole. I mean it works ok in France for example.
dleslie 3y ago
By AI guardrails they mean: AI cannot be used to write or rewrite scripts, and cannot be source material; but writers are free to use it if they wish. Reminds me of how elevators originally had operators, until everyone realized how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons. As AI improves, we will come to feel the same about writers.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  In theory can't they basically have a single writer use an AI to write every script for every movie and TV show? At least with elevators they needed a person in each elevator.
- morelisp 3y ago
  > how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons. That doesn't seem like the right cause, since it's the people who seem most concerned with seriousness and economic efficiency who still have elevator operators today.
  - MiguelX413 3y ago
    Who still has elevator operators today?
    - morelisp 3y ago
      Wealthy people and stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person.
      - comex 3y ago
        For wealthy people, that would be an example of extreme luxury, or in other words spending vast amounts of money for marginal improvements in quality of life. Doing so is perfectly rational for them (what else are they going to do with their money?), but hardly an example of economic efficiency. “Stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person” are a special case. It might be economically efficient (i.e. profitable) for them to spend money on things associated with extravagance and wealth, in order to more effectively create an image in their customers’ minds and thus attract more customers. But those circumstances don’t apply to the vast majority of elevator owners. So what exactly is your point?
timbit42 3y ago
They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.
- ShrigmaMale 3y ago
  I agree. I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops. They have lots of money to do it, it's pro-worker, and it enables them to own the means of production. Unions ironically act very conservative these days. They could take some bold steps to potentially create very worker-friendly, worker-owned shops, which would create a voluntary, non-coercive path towards the "market socialist" structure many people advocate. Even in large industries like automobiles where this is hard, they could probably start doing something like smaller-scale parts production and sell those.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops Because that requires skillsets they don't have. People with the skills to start, manage and run companies usually aren't workers so not a part of the union, and I doubt the union members would be happy if the union spent lots of money to hire managers to bet on a startup.
    - treyd 3y ago
      > Because that requires skillsets they don't have. This is reductive, union organizers have management skills that would transfer over if needed. The reason co-ops are not more common is moreso because there aren't the same kinds of institutions that support their growth like there are for traditional companies.
  - treis 3y ago
    Because the real title should be Unions Work For Union Members. Unions became unpopular for a reason. Some were (and I assume still are) outright criminal organizations. The better ones were happy to sell out future workers with two tiered pay structures and by rotting out the companies they worked for. In practice they have just been another layer of economically unproductive people siphoning off value.
unusualmonkey 3y ago
[flagged]
- pydry 3y ago
  What does that have to do with this?
  - Someone1234 3y ago
    It is just the typical "The solution isn't perfect, so there is no point trying anything at all" hand-wave.
  - unusualmonkey 3y ago
    AI is the tide. The sand forts are the 'guardrails'. Saying that 'Unions work' in this context seems premature.
- madeuphoggarbo 3y ago
  As a kid I liked giving up, and rolling over. It was fun to see how hard I could work for nothing.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Unions are "conservative" in terms of resisting certain changes. Interesting dichotomy.
ocschwar 3y ago
I have my doubts about unions in our particular industry sector, but out in the real world there are many, many jobs that you would have to be insane to take up without a union at your back.
- Woshiwuja 3y ago
  Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Not having them is a huge problem. In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind, wonder why in America that doesnt happen
  - braza 3y ago
    > In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind Not correct for the whole Europe. In some places in Central Europe you do not have a Union but instead Work Council that intermediates and oversees the management and acts in the interest of employees. Personally I like the idea, but at least in some counties it became an instrument of job protection for old employees that sometimes has a different agenda than other employees.
  - nxm 3y ago
    As a result of this, there’s a less dynamic job market and lower wages. Companies essentially take on additional risks when hiring there where if it the hire is bad, as they’re unable to or it’s very costly to terminate the employee. This results in a risk premium that is offset via lower wages. I’ll take the U.S. tech sector without unions anyday.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    > Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Fundamental in what sense? In most of the world, most of the industries are not unionized. And where there are unions, they came after the line of work started. Which makes unions seem not fundamental at all. > In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind Not true at all. Most professional service oriented jobs are not unionized. Even in places like Germany where unions are relatively common.
  - em-bee 3y ago
oldtechworker 3y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  > unions are for fighting for better conditions for their workers regardless of gender or race Regardless of, but not blind to. Different workers do experience different conditions because of race and gender among other things, and unions need to account for those differences not pretend they don't exist. > I could in no way trust a tech Union to actually fight for me and not against me You probably didn't mean it this way, but this strongly implies to me you are knowingly doing things that someone who cared about racial or gender equality would feel like they would need to fight. Why is that?
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    It doesnt imply that at all. The union by its own admission is treating members differently based on race. You cant claim that its good and not happening at the same time.
  - oldtechworker 3y ago
    I think we should have completely race and gender blind hiring and promotions. That enough is something someone that cares about equity is against, is it not? Being against equity, which is equal outcomes regardless of input, does not imply one is discriminating people by race or gender or harassing people.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      We don't have race and gender blind life so what would this even look like? When you are asking me not to see something that I can perceive very clearly, I cannot call that wisdom.
  - zilchnotta 3y ago
    Not the OP, but I feel the racially focused initiatives of today are misdirected, counterproductive, and themselves racist. And like you, I deem it as not in my best interest, or society at large, to endorse or support those who are doing the wrong thing (even if they are doing so with the best of intentions).
AlbertCory 3y ago
Where does that amazing 59% come from? Oh yes: a survey the AFL-CIO conducted, with no details provided: " In the early 2000s the AFL-CIO Department for Professional Employees started conducting survey of tech workers across the country found. In 2004, the survey showed that just 33% supported unionizing their workplace. By 2016, that had grown to 59%." The only "survey" that counts is the actual election for union recognition.
- 1propionyl 3y ago
  You would think so, but there tends to be pretty significant bias in union card campaigns and authorization votes. Strike authorizations tend to be even higher. People who don't support the campaigns tend to just not vote, but there's also a significant number of people who just don't find out. A better "survey" would be the number who actually sign union cards in workplaces with mandatory union orientations (meaning every employee is necessarily "surveyed"). This also means agreeing to pay dues so there's a "money where your mouth is" component. (Source: I've helped with running a few.)
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    You want to abolish the secret ballot election. Not a good look for you.
braza 3y ago
Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements for the workers (especially during the industrialisation phase of several countries). However, when this dynamic is broken what happen is that the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly. One clear example is the automotive industry that invested in high amount or automation, offshoring, and in a streamlined supply chain to reduce that exposure. I do not have any number but I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. For IT I think several companies, specially in this down market, are starting to do the same thing doing offshoring or nearshoring of SWE, hiring folks abroad to avoid the risk of unionization due to the fact there’s no monopoly of SWE as a workforce.
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    > Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.
    - billy99k 3y ago
      That isn't the point. When the union is involved, they keep demanding hire wages and benefits and it gets to the point where companies are better-off offshoring. Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry. I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).
nonethewiser 3y ago
I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
- bastardoperator 3y ago
  Studies have shown time and time again that a 4 day work week results in higher productivity and happier employees. Happy employees also do better work.
  - hgdfhgfdhgdf 3y ago
    If that were true, why isn't every company adopting 4 day work weeks?
    - gossamer 3y ago
      I think there is a change of attitude with a shorter work week. If I am working 9-5 at the same place everyday, I basically live there. It is easier to decide to take more breaks because there is no Friday to relax or get chores done or go to appointments. I take every other Friday off and it helps me focus more at work. I schedule all my weekday appointments for Friday (as much as I can). Monday thru Thursday I can push a little harder and be a little more focused because I know I have Friday (or a week from Friday) to take my dog to the vet, me to the doctor, or whatever else I need to do. I would love a real 4 day work week.
    - hypeit 3y ago
      Poor management is endemic. Managers are for the most part trying to maximize their ego/status. This means having their "underlings" grinding away (preferably in view) for as many hours as possible. That this situation is bad for the company doesn't matter since management is the one executing the poor decisions.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      How many have even tried it? Companies are profit-seeking but that doesn't mean they will automatically make correct profitable decisions at every juncture. They're led by humans who generally make small conservative changes based on intuition. We see companies languish, stagnate, and miss critical strategic opportunities all the time.
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
Unions also kill companies when executives refuse their demands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_McCardell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_McCardell
- sundaeofshock 3y ago
  Hmmm… that’s a very interesting take an article that suggests the hubris of the CEO ended up destroying the company he was hired to lead.
- Steltek 3y ago
  That particular example seems to be entirely the fault of a CEO who was terrible at his job.
aldousd666 3y ago
I'm not a business owner or a CEO, and I can say wholeheartedly that I do not believe unions are good for anybody. It's just like rent control that gives renters lower prices but it destroys the supply eventually. Unions that get wage hikes by stomping their feet and yelling in public are not making the economy better. The detriment is that over time, it makes it harder to hire new workers because the union will get all up in your business if you try to fire someone for non performance. Union shops also make it harder for individual workers who stand out to negotiate higher salaries for themselves. On balance I think unions are a big bad.
- tehjoker 3y ago
  > if you try to fire someone Sounds like a manager lol
knewter 3y ago
When I was learning to walk, my dad was installing conveyors for an automotive factory - he was vp of engineering (later robotics) for a large engineering firm that Siemens ultimately bought. He was trying to get the job finished and get home to his family, so he was working late one night double checking the fit on all the nuts, bolts, anything he could check to ensure the job was successful. He did this all the time, I learned how to successfully deliver product from seeing him do it. A gang of union guys came up to him and threatened to beat him if he continued to work because he was taking a union job away from "the pipe guy", call him Frank. My dad says "that's fine, can frank come help?" "Frank's out sick" And that was that. He either stopped getting the job done or they would visit violence upon him. I'll never side with people that think this is acceptable behaviour.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  With that criteria, you have ruled out siding with any form of organization that humans have ever created. Businesses, governments, churches, sports teams and probably even Girl Scout troops all have a history of committing violence when it serves their aims.
  - sershe 3y ago
    For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation. Throughout their history, unions would always be maximally exclusionary to the degree it wouldn't backfire in terms of PR (and sometimes beyond that, e.g. Cesar Chavez conducting anti-immigrant border raids), because that is their whole point.
    - tshaddox 3y ago
      > For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation. I don't see much of a distinction. I suspect a significant portion of workplace or work-related crime involves the criminal being motivated by work-related incentives.
    - autoexec 3y ago
sershe 3y ago
So a guy is walking down the street and he sees a worker along the road; the worker digs a hole in the ground, then waits a little bit and fills it back in. After that, he walks 10 feet and repeats the process. The guy asks the worker what he's doing. "Planting trees." "Why don't you put the trees in though?" "Oh, I am from the diggers union; the guy from the planters union is out sick today."
- sershe 3y ago
  People are really not liking this joke. I think it's because it strikes (see what I did here?) too close to home. Or is it because it's not realistic? Ok, actually there are two digger guys, one to dig the hole and one to fill it in, pursuant to union agreement of 1953 when they were using shovels; now they have an excavator, but... jobs! So they take turns, or maybe they have two excavators pursuant to union agreement of 1979 so that they could each have their own workplace after that one guy wanted AC on and the other wanted AC off and the AC on guy had a heat stroke. Also the planter guy is not out sick, he was suspended from the job because he was putting trees in the holes upside down; he's now sitting in the "rubber room" with full pay pending 11 months of union arbitration. Also when the passer-by offers to help them put the trees in, the diggers beat him up.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Did the WGA really “win”? Studios can train models on writers work, which means they will eventually replace them. This might be seen as a pyrrhic victory 20 years from now.
doubleg72 3y ago
Yeah UAW just locked in the inflation we have experienced. I do not agree that they are being paid what they are actually worth. Unions are ruining this country.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
The only correct statement in this article is that there needs to be a counterbalance to corporate power and even that is only correct if I give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean market power and not a corporation's right to run itself as shareholders see fit (and fail into bankruptcy if that way is a bad idea). A correct heading for this article would be "Unions also abuse market power for the benefit of their members at the cost of dead weight loss to society" The correct counter balance to corporate power is strong antitrust law that is enforced (similar but not quite to the extreme of how it was pre Rehnquist supreme court).
tim333 3y ago
Unions can work but can have downsides as well. I mean take Detroit which used to be a booming place and the world center of the motor industry. In the good times when they were making a lot of money the unions negotiated high wages, conditions etc. Then when things turned down a bit, instead of being able to cut that companies just moved elsewhere and it's been downhill ever since.

156 points by benwerd 3y ago

xnx 3y ago

I'm conflicted about unions, but it would be truly amazing if they brought us the 4-day work-week the way they got the 8-hour workday and weekends.

timbit42 3y ago
Have you looked into worker cooperatives? Ocean Spray is an example in the US. Mondragon is an example of one in Spain that has tens of thousands of workers and has existed for many decades.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- umrcumrcu4 3y ago
  This is not correct. Ocean Spray is not a cooperative of workers. It's a cooperative of private farmers.
- Aunche 3y ago
  I wouldn't characterize any agricultural co-op like Ocean Spray as the same category as a worker co-op like Mondragon. There is a very distinct line between a farmer, who's an owner, and a farm worker, who handles most of the day-to-day operations.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    Yes, I know a company in my country where the store owners are in a cooperative but the employees are not.
- hgdfhgfdhgdf 3y ago
  I suspect you are not familiar with farmer cooperatives. They are not employee cooperatives. They are corporatives of private farmers.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    I wasn't talking about farmer cooperatives. Worker cooperatives are owned and run by the workers, thus the name. Certainly some cooperatives are not worker cooperatives.
morelisp 3y ago
It's "they" because it's people in the past. If you want unions to win new rights today, you'd better start using "we".
charcircuit 3y ago
Weekends and 8 hour work week is not necessarily a good thing. There could be benefits to switching to 996 work week to compete better with China.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Benefits to whom?
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Benefits to the country tend to also be benefits to the people of the country - or perhaps their children.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      What do you mean by "to the country". Faster economic growth?
      - londons_explore 3y ago
        Faster economic growth tends to lead to happier citizens. In fact, there is a philosophical school of thought that shows that happiness isn't related to the environment one lives in, but the improvement that one sees through one's lifetime. Economic growth can deliver that.
        mostlysimilar 3y ago
        Unfortunately all of that improvement is concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy.
        n4r9 3y ago
        > Faster economic growth tends to lead to happier citizens. What's the evidence for this?
        phone8675309 3y ago
londons_explore 3y ago
A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay cut - you'd just have to have the kids share a bedroom rather than having one each and a guest room. Downside: Those on a 4 day workweek really struggle to get promoted to senior positions.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almost half a century [3]). If a 4 day week is codified into labor law and regulation, there is no game theory consideration vs some orgs with 4 day weeks competing with those with 5. Would you work 6 days a week today (for example)? Probably not, unless you're an outlier of some sort, and you don't see many orgs with a mandatory 6 day work week (because they wouldn't be able to retain talent). This is about pulling a policy ratchet to reduce the work week at scale for everyone, because the productivity already exists (it's just been funneled to the top wealthiest population, traditionally). "It always seems impossible until it's done." [1] https://www.4dayweek.com/ https://www.4dayweek.com/ | https://www.4dayweek.com/research https://www.4dayweek.com/research [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week? Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40? It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth. There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs. It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant). If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.
gumby 3y ago
I built my house using union labor. Having seen the quality of welds from some non-union welders it was a no brainer. Overall quality of the rest of the work (carpentry, plastering everything) was worth it.
- VancouverMan 3y ago
  Is there something that such unions in your area do to ensure that a worker's skill and ability matter far more than, say, who their relatives happen to be?
  - gumby 3y ago
    I don't know what it's like in Vancouver, but I have lived in Massachusetts and there it's not really a union issue: the corruption is equally present in, say, government (e.g. until recently there was a whole county all of whose land had been taken away but that remained solely so jobs like sheriff, bailiff etc could be handed out to relatives in cronies. Anything with a large flow of money (e.g. the Big Dig) gets openly looted. I've been told the same is true in Chicago, but I don't know directly. As far as the unions go, indeed, the lack of seriousness about the work is how, for example, the Ted Williams tunnel killed people, with no repercussions. OTOH what passes for corruption in California, where I live now, would make an east coast politician laugh. Certainly in the trades (welding in particular, but all sorts of construction I needed) the quality of work was top notch. And why not? In construction, at least, there is no reason to use union if you don't want to and most don't, which leads to the the shitty quality of residential construction (there should be more of it but that's another issue). Perhaps one thing is regulation. We once bought a pressure vessel that arrived with a small ding (if bad, it's an opportunity for an explosion). We called the pressure vessel unit in Oakland and someone arrived in 45 minutes which means he'd dropped anything else and and hopped into his car as soon as we hung up the phone. Even before he arrived we got an annoyed call from the mfr (as it turned out all was well...but the pressure vessel unit wanted to see for themselves). While he was there we showed him a piece done by a former contractor who had not been able to produce the union tickets. We had fired them because the work was safety critical (high pressure steam is no joke) and the contractor was suing us. One look at the piece and he yanked out his phone. Let's just say later that day the contractor's lawyer couriered over a document cancelling the lawsuit, a cashier's check for money already paid, and a request that we not countersue. Those guys are not fucking around.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Although unions fought for a long time for 8 hour work days it seems the biggest push came after Ford switched to 8 hour days (and doubled pay) and saw productivity and profits rise. It’s hard to give all the credit to any one group.
tim333 3y ago
Regulation on work hours, holidays and the like is better handled by government legislation on the whole. I mean it works ok in France for example.

dleslie 3y ago

By AI guardrails they mean: AI cannot be used to write or rewrite scripts, and cannot be source material; but writers are free to use it if they wish. Reminds me of how elevators originally had operators, until everyone realized how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons. As AI improves, we will come to feel the same about writers.

marcinzm 3y ago
In theory can't they basically have a single writer use an AI to write every script for every movie and TV show? At least with elevators they needed a person in each elevator.
morelisp 3y ago
> how wasteful and silly it is to have someone whose sole job is to press elevator buttons. That doesn't seem like the right cause, since it's the people who seem most concerned with seriousness and economic efficiency who still have elevator operators today.
- MiguelX413 3y ago
  Who still has elevator operators today?
  - morelisp 3y ago
    Wealthy people and stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person.
    - comex 3y ago
      For wealthy people, that would be an example of extreme luxury, or in other words spending vast amounts of money for marginal improvements in quality of life. Doing so is perfectly rational for them (what else are they going to do with their money?), but hardly an example of economic efficiency. “Stores trying to make their customers feel like a wealthy person” are a special case. It might be economically efficient (i.e. profitable) for them to spend money on things associated with extravagance and wealth, in order to more effectively create an image in their customers’ minds and thus attract more customers. But those circumstances don’t apply to the vast majority of elevator owners. So what exactly is your point?

timbit42 3y ago

They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.

ShrigmaMale 3y ago
I agree. I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops. They have lots of money to do it, it's pro-worker, and it enables them to own the means of production. Unions ironically act very conservative these days. They could take some bold steps to potentially create very worker-friendly, worker-owned shops, which would create a voluntary, non-coercive path towards the "market socialist" structure many people advocate. Even in large industries like automobiles where this is hard, they could probably start doing something like smaller-scale parts production and sell those.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops Because that requires skillsets they don't have. People with the skills to start, manage and run companies usually aren't workers so not a part of the union, and I doubt the union members would be happy if the union spent lots of money to hire managers to bet on a startup.
  - treyd 3y ago
    > Because that requires skillsets they don't have. This is reductive, union organizers have management skills that would transfer over if needed. The reason co-ops are not more common is moreso because there aren't the same kinds of institutions that support their growth like there are for traditional companies.
- treis 3y ago
  Because the real title should be Unions Work For Union Members. Unions became unpopular for a reason. Some were (and I assume still are) outright criminal organizations. The better ones were happy to sell out future workers with two tiered pay structures and by rotting out the companies they worked for. In practice they have just been another layer of economically unproductive people siphoning off value.

unusualmonkey 3y ago

[flagged]

pydry 3y ago
What does that have to do with this?
- Someone1234 3y ago
  It is just the typical "The solution isn't perfect, so there is no point trying anything at all" hand-wave.
- unusualmonkey 3y ago
  AI is the tide. The sand forts are the 'guardrails'. Saying that 'Unions work' in this context seems premature.
madeuphoggarbo 3y ago
As a kid I liked giving up, and rolling over. It was fun to see how hard I could work for nothing.
HPsquared 3y ago
Unions are "conservative" in terms of resisting certain changes. Interesting dichotomy.

ocschwar 3y ago

I have my doubts about unions in our particular industry sector, but out in the real world there are many, many jobs that you would have to be insane to take up without a union at your back.

Woshiwuja 3y ago
Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Not having them is a huge problem. In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind, wonder why in America that doesnt happen
- braza 3y ago
  > In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind Not correct for the whole Europe. In some places in Central Europe you do not have a Union but instead Work Council that intermediates and oversees the management and acts in the interest of employees. Personally I like the idea, but at least in some counties it became an instrument of job protection for old employees that sometimes has a different agenda than other employees.
- nxm 3y ago
  As a result of this, there’s a less dynamic job market and lower wages. Companies essentially take on additional risks when hiring there where if it the hire is bad, as they’re unable to or it’s very costly to terminate the employee. This results in a risk premium that is offset via lower wages. I’ll take the U.S. tech sector without unions anyday.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Fundamental in what sense? In most of the world, most of the industries are not unionized. And where there are unions, they came after the line of work started. Which makes unions seem not fundamental at all. > In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind Not true at all. Most professional service oriented jobs are not unionized. Even in places like Germany where unions are relatively common.
- em-bee 3y ago

oldtechworker 3y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 3y ago
> unions are for fighting for better conditions for their workers regardless of gender or race Regardless of, but not blind to. Different workers do experience different conditions because of race and gender among other things, and unions need to account for those differences not pretend they don't exist. > I could in no way trust a tech Union to actually fight for me and not against me You probably didn't mean it this way, but this strongly implies to me you are knowingly doing things that someone who cared about racial or gender equality would feel like they would need to fight. Why is that?
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  It doesnt imply that at all. The union by its own admission is treating members differently based on race. You cant claim that its good and not happening at the same time.
- oldtechworker 3y ago
  I think we should have completely race and gender blind hiring and promotions. That enough is something someone that cares about equity is against, is it not? Being against equity, which is equal outcomes regardless of input, does not imply one is discriminating people by race or gender or harassing people.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    We don't have race and gender blind life so what would this even look like? When you are asking me not to see something that I can perceive very clearly, I cannot call that wisdom.
- zilchnotta 3y ago
  Not the OP, but I feel the racially focused initiatives of today are misdirected, counterproductive, and themselves racist. And like you, I deem it as not in my best interest, or society at large, to endorse or support those who are doing the wrong thing (even if they are doing so with the best of intentions).

AlbertCory 3y ago

Where does that amazing 59% come from? Oh yes: a survey the AFL-CIO conducted, with no details provided: " In the early 2000s the AFL-CIO Department for Professional Employees started conducting survey of tech workers across the country found. In 2004, the survey showed that just 33% supported unionizing their workplace. By 2016, that had grown to 59%." The only "survey" that counts is the actual election for union recognition.

1propionyl 3y ago
You would think so, but there tends to be pretty significant bias in union card campaigns and authorization votes. Strike authorizations tend to be even higher. People who don't support the campaigns tend to just not vote, but there's also a significant number of people who just don't find out. A better "survey" would be the number who actually sign union cards in workplaces with mandatory union orientations (meaning every employee is necessarily "surveyed"). This also means agreeing to pay dues so there's a "money where your mouth is" component. (Source: I've helped with running a few.)
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  You want to abolish the secret ballot election. Not a good look for you.

braza 3y ago

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements for the workers (especially during the industrialisation phase of several countries). However, when this dynamic is broken what happen is that the “losing side” in a negotiation will start to see alternatives to reduce the dependency of this monopoly. One clear example is the automotive industry that invested in high amount or automation, offshoring, and in a streamlined supply chain to reduce that exposure. I do not have any number but I would bet that Tesla today can have a high operational margin in comparison with Ford or GM. For IT I think several companies, specially in this down market, are starting to do the same thing doing offshoring or nearshoring of SWE, hiring folks abroad to avoid the risk of unionization due to the fact there’s no monopoly of SWE as a workforce.

andrei_says_ 3y ago
Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.
- Spivak 3y ago
  > Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.
  - billy99k 3y ago
    That isn't the point. When the union is involved, they keep demanding hire wages and benefits and it gets to the point where companies are better-off offshoring. Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry. I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).

nonethewiser 3y ago

I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.

bastardoperator 3y ago
Studies have shown time and time again that a 4 day work week results in higher productivity and happier employees. Happy employees also do better work.
- hgdfhgfdhgdf 3y ago
  If that were true, why isn't every company adopting 4 day work weeks?
  - gossamer 3y ago
    I think there is a change of attitude with a shorter work week. If I am working 9-5 at the same place everyday, I basically live there. It is easier to decide to take more breaks because there is no Friday to relax or get chores done or go to appointments. I take every other Friday off and it helps me focus more at work. I schedule all my weekday appointments for Friday (as much as I can). Monday thru Thursday I can push a little harder and be a little more focused because I know I have Friday (or a week from Friday) to take my dog to the vet, me to the doctor, or whatever else I need to do. I would love a real 4 day work week.
  - hypeit 3y ago
    Poor management is endemic. Managers are for the most part trying to maximize their ego/status. This means having their "underlings" grinding away (preferably in view) for as many hours as possible. That this situation is bad for the company doesn't matter since management is the one executing the poor decisions.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    How many have even tried it? Companies are profit-seeking but that doesn't mean they will automatically make correct profitable decisions at every juncture. They're led by humans who generally make small conservative changes based on intuition. We see companies languish, stagnate, and miss critical strategic opportunities all the time.

say_it_as_it_is 3y ago

Unions also kill companies when executives refuse their demands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_McCardell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_McCardell

sundaeofshock 3y ago
Hmmm… that’s a very interesting take an article that suggests the hubris of the CEO ended up destroying the company he was hired to lead.
Steltek 3y ago
That particular example seems to be entirely the fault of a CEO who was terrible at his job.

aldousd666 3y ago

I'm not a business owner or a CEO, and I can say wholeheartedly that I do not believe unions are good for anybody. It's just like rent control that gives renters lower prices but it destroys the supply eventually. Unions that get wage hikes by stomping their feet and yelling in public are not making the economy better. The detriment is that over time, it makes it harder to hire new workers because the union will get all up in your business if you try to fire someone for non performance. Union shops also make it harder for individual workers who stand out to negotiate higher salaries for themselves. On balance I think unions are a big bad.

tehjoker 3y ago
> if you try to fire someone Sounds like a manager lol

knewter 3y ago

When I was learning to walk, my dad was installing conveyors for an automotive factory - he was vp of engineering (later robotics) for a large engineering firm that Siemens ultimately bought. He was trying to get the job finished and get home to his family, so he was working late one night double checking the fit on all the nuts, bolts, anything he could check to ensure the job was successful. He did this all the time, I learned how to successfully deliver product from seeing him do it. A gang of union guys came up to him and threatened to beat him if he continued to work because he was taking a union job away from "the pipe guy", call him Frank. My dad says "that's fine, can frank come help?" "Frank's out sick" And that was that. He either stopped getting the job done or they would visit violence upon him. I'll never side with people that think this is acceptable behaviour.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
With that criteria, you have ruled out siding with any form of organization that humans have ever created. Businesses, governments, churches, sports teams and probably even Girl Scout troops all have a history of committing violence when it serves their aims.
- sershe 3y ago
  For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation. Throughout their history, unions would always be maximally exclusionary to the degree it wouldn't backfire in terms of PR (and sometimes beyond that, e.g. Cesar Chavez conducting anti-immigrant border raids), because that is their whole point.
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    > For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation. I don't see much of a distinction. I suspect a significant portion of workplace or work-related crime involves the criminal being motivated by work-related incentives.
  - autoexec 3y ago

sershe 3y ago

So a guy is walking down the street and he sees a worker along the road; the worker digs a hole in the ground, then waits a little bit and fills it back in. After that, he walks 10 feet and repeats the process. The guy asks the worker what he's doing. "Planting trees." "Why don't you put the trees in though?" "Oh, I am from the diggers union; the guy from the planters union is out sick today."

sershe 3y ago
People are really not liking this joke. I think it's because it strikes (see what I did here?) too close to home. Or is it because it's not realistic? Ok, actually there are two digger guys, one to dig the hole and one to fill it in, pursuant to union agreement of 1953 when they were using shovels; now they have an excavator, but... jobs! So they take turns, or maybe they have two excavators pursuant to union agreement of 1979 so that they could each have their own workplace after that one guy wanted AC on and the other wanted AC off and the AC on guy had a heat stroke. Also the planter guy is not out sick, he was suspended from the job because he was putting trees in the holes upside down; he's now sitting in the "rubber room" with full pay pending 11 months of union arbitration. Also when the passer-by offers to help them put the trees in, the diggers beat him up.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Did the WGA really “win”? Studios can train models on writers work, which means they will eventually replace them. This might be seen as a pyrrhic victory 20 years from now.

doubleg72 3y ago

Yeah UAW just locked in the inflation we have experienced. I do not agree that they are being paid what they are actually worth. Unions are ruining this country.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

The only correct statement in this article is that there needs to be a counterbalance to corporate power and even that is only correct if I give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean market power and not a corporation's right to run itself as shareholders see fit (and fail into bankruptcy if that way is a bad idea). A correct heading for this article would be "Unions also abuse market power for the benefit of their members at the cost of dead weight loss to society" The correct counter balance to corporate power is strong antitrust law that is enforced (similar but not quite to the extreme of how it was pre Rehnquist supreme court).

tim333 3y ago

Unions can work but can have downsides as well. I mean take Detroit which used to be a booming place and the world center of the motor industry. In the good times when they were making a lot of money the unions negotiated high wages, conditions etc. Then when things turned down a bit, instead of being able to cut that companies just moved elsewhere and it's been downhill ever since.