4 ms·

I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions

by bko 3y ago

I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions based on an observable set of factors like how long someone has been there and what education and training they have. But anyone that's worked in the workforce knows this is very limited. People aren't the same. Sometimes someone has been in an org forever but is utterly incompetent. Or someone may have all the certifications in the world but be completely useless. So its a dehumanizing sausage factory. Everyone knows two people may have the same title but one is much more productive at their job. The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. Person A can unplug the monitor but person B has to move it, etc. Or they may have to mandate things like "moving is dangerous so you need a supervisor watching as the person move the monitor. Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get (i.e. showing educational videos during class time). This wouldn't fly in a normal work environment, but due to the over-formalization of hiring, you can't just let someone go for being incompetent or just not very good at their job. You have to jump through hoops

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
phone8675309 3y ago
> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. > Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. > A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  For one thing, berserk cops could actually be fired if it weren't for their union.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    It is not the union that is keeping those cops employed - they're taken off the street, typically without pay - while their case is being adjudicated. What is keeping them employed is the doctrine of qualified immunity where they are rarely, if ever, held to account, criminally, for their behavior.
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    Look at how the justice system, regulators and legislators treat cops who abuse their power. The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.
- bko 3y ago
  > The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. This explains the decline of unions in general. Its also tough when the president of the US is on the picket line and your industry depends on a federal bailout every decade or so. But that's a while different story... > Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. Other places are not immune and if someone wants to hire their family member at an above market rate, he is free to do so. But it may raise a few eyebrows from greedy business owners. But paying above market rates is not by design. I would still like to know what to do if you have 100 equally qualified people trying to get the same over paid position. How do you decide? > Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? Absolutely. You don't see non unionized industries protecting workers to an extreme degree. Why would they? The whole premise behind unions is that management is not always aligned with workers interests. But now you're telling me managers would protect literal murderers just because? It's not consistent
- adamrezich 3y ago
  > The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.
blindhippo 3y ago
Unions are meant to be effective in situations where the balance of power between capital and labor is heavily tilted towards the former. In a situation where there is an actual competitive market and people can leverage their skills and experience towards better salaries on their own, the effectiveness of a union is much lower, though there is still industry wide benefits such as normalization of health insurance standards, anti-cartel advocacy, general working condition standards, etc. I think the police union example is a bit of a bad faith example - there is more to that one than just "union bad, mmmmkay" - it's institutionalized power and would NEVER be a market driven situation. Teachers, generally speaking, work in a single employer market, meaning the power dynamic is again tilted towards the employer. Without a union, teachers would likely have even worse conditions than they currently "enjoy" in the USA (and frankly Canada). Hell even now they basically work overtime for free due to expected "extra curricular" workloads outside of school hours and in many cases have to supply their own materials just to be able to do their own job. Yes, there are disadvantages (as there is in all things). But these do not mean that unions are fundamentally broken.
braza 3y ago
> A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get But I think the counter argument here would be that for every bad cop/teacher that get away with something due to some shenanigans of a Union, there’s cases also that the same Union provides a platform for someone innocent to not get fired. Let me place another perspective regarding why some unions are necessary that is for airline pilots. This is a classic case where you have a monopoly of workforce (qualified pilots with specific knowledge with low job transitivity) and workplace (exists in some specific location just a few airlines). In a hypothetical situation where the airlines start to enforce increase in working hours, reducing rest, and place strain on the workforce; the Unions has the organisation and power to balance that relationship and in some of the cases to help to shape the minimum regulation for the work conditions. In those situations with dual-monopoly and low job transitivity of the workforce I think make sense to have Unions.
em-bee 3y ago
The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. this is a very US specific problem. i don't believe any other country in the world allows unions to get away with such nonsense.
tehjoker 3y ago
Unions are democracies. If they are rigid, that's because that's what the majority wants. If they are flexible, likewise. Police unions are basically the worst example of a union. Cops are not "workers". They are on the side of capital, policing its boundaries (literally) that's why they are so rotten!

by bko 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

phone8675309 3y ago

> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. > Finally even if they do succeed at paying above market salaries, that introduces a new question: who gets the job? Paying above a market salary will necessarily result in a lot more workers than available positions. So you have gatekeeping. That leads to cronyism as above market jobs are dolled out to friends and family. This is not inherent to unions - this happens every day in non-union gigs. Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. > A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? This is a serious question - I really want to know if you think that the non-union police department would shoot fewer people than an all-union force.

CamperBob2 3y ago
For one thing, berserk cops could actually be fired if it weren't for their union.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  It is not the union that is keeping those cops employed - they're taken off the street, typically without pay - while their case is being adjudicated. What is keeping them employed is the doctrine of qualified immunity where they are rarely, if ever, held to account, criminally, for their behavior.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Look at how the justice system, regulators and legislators treat cops who abuse their power. The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.
bko 3y ago
> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. This explains the decline of unions in general. Its also tough when the president of the US is on the picket line and your industry depends on a federal bailout every decade or so. But that's a while different story... > Not sure why you think non-union jobs are immune to cronyism and gatekeeping. Other places are not immune and if someone wants to hire their family member at an above market rate, he is free to do so. But it may raise a few eyebrows from greedy business owners. But paying above market rates is not by design. I would still like to know what to do if you have 100 equally qualified people trying to get the same over paid position. How do you decide? > Do you honestly think that the situation would be any different if police were non-union? Absolutely. You don't see non unionized industries protecting workers to an extreme degree. Why would they? The whole premise behind unions is that management is not always aligned with workers interests. But now you're telling me managers would protect literal murderers just because? It's not consistent
adamrezich 3y ago
> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.

blindhippo 3y ago

Unions are meant to be effective in situations where the balance of power between capital and labor is heavily tilted towards the former. In a situation where there is an actual competitive market and people can leverage their skills and experience towards better salaries on their own, the effectiveness of a union is much lower, though there is still industry wide benefits such as normalization of health insurance standards, anti-cartel advocacy, general working condition standards, etc. I think the police union example is a bit of a bad faith example - there is more to that one than just "union bad, mmmmkay" - it's institutionalized power and would NEVER be a market driven situation. Teachers, generally speaking, work in a single employer market, meaning the power dynamic is again tilted towards the employer. Without a union, teachers would likely have even worse conditions than they currently "enjoy" in the USA (and frankly Canada). Hell even now they basically work overtime for free due to expected "extra curricular" workloads outside of school hours and in many cases have to supply their own materials just to be able to do their own job. Yes, there are disadvantages (as there is in all things). But these do not mean that unions are fundamentally broken.

braza 3y ago

> A clear example of how destructive unions can be, take a look at police unions that regularly protect bad police. You see that across the board. I've known teachers in the teachers union that obviously phone it in every chance they get But I think the counter argument here would be that for every bad cop/teacher that get away with something due to some shenanigans of a Union, there’s cases also that the same Union provides a platform for someone innocent to not get fired. Let me place another perspective regarding why some unions are necessary that is for airline pilots. This is a classic case where you have a monopoly of workforce (qualified pilots with specific knowledge with low job transitivity) and workplace (exists in some specific location just a few airlines). In a hypothetical situation where the airlines start to enforce increase in working hours, reducing rest, and place strain on the workforce; the Unions has the organisation and power to balance that relationship and in some of the cases to help to shape the minimum regulation for the work conditions. In those situations with dual-monopoly and low job transitivity of the workforce I think make sense to have Unions.

em-bee 3y ago

The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars. this is a very US specific problem. i don't believe any other country in the world allows unions to get away with such nonsense.

tehjoker 3y ago

Unions are democracies. If they are rigid, that's because that's what the majority wants. If they are flexible, likewise. Police unions are basically the worst example of a union. Cops are not "workers". They are on the side of capital, policing its boundaries (literally) that's why they are so rotten!