7 ms·

This is a very important distinction to be aware of. Thanks for sharing it. It's too easy to just perceive it as "American-style unions in Sweden."

tokai 3y ago
American union are bad in a very particular way. While unions in other countries can have issues, Americans can safely assume that they cannot map their experience with unions to other countries.
- chollida1 3y ago
  > American union are bad in a very particular way. Can you expand here?
  - justrealist 3y ago
    American unions have an incredibly adversarial relationship with their employers in a way that European unions do not. (many) European unions are collaborative with their employers and act like they fundamentally want to help the business grow so there's more to share. American unions, even when they are not outright corrupt mafia-eque organizations (ie, longshoresmen), are purely extractive.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      I would argue you are correct in fact, but wrong in detail. The European unions were absolutely ball busters and they won. That’s why they’re not adversarial, they don’t need to be. Employers who don’t go along find them self with no labor force.
      - smcg 3y ago
        Europe didn't have nearly as brutal of an anti-labor crackdown as the US had in the 1870-1920s period.
    - grumple 3y ago
      Calling Americans unions purely extractive is not accurate. American unions fight for employee rights, including fair wages, time off, fair treatment, and employee safety. Unions do not want to bankrupt their employers, they just want to be treated fairly.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        What you're describing is extractive. They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". They are not attempting to balance those constraints. They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. It's OK to think that this is a good thing but this is not the same as a collaborative relationship, like you would have with coworkers or another team at a (non-dysfunctional) company.
        standardUser 3y ago
        > They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them. > They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. And what, precisely, do you think companies are doing?
        justrealist 3y ago
        I feel like you believe you are arguing with me, when I am simply describing how you think, vs how European unions think.
        standardUser 3y ago
        I was responding to an absurd misunderstanding of labor relations.
        nicoburns 3y ago
        > Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them. In Europe it is often the case that companies and unions have a genuinely collaborative relationship where the unions will take the company's needs into consideration, and the company will take the worker's needs into consideration. It doesn't always work out, and each party has their own priorities of course. But it is often not nearly so adversarial as it is in the US. That it is like this is to a large extent a cultural peculiarity of the US rather than an immutable truth. IF people (incl. those representing companies) were economically rational beings out to maximise their own short-term gain then that would be what would happen. But real people are not, and are often able to see that it creates a poorer, lower-trust society overall if they try to push for their immediate material needs too strongly. This is of course all backed up by the legal and political systems (which will step in if either side oversteps the mark too far), and a long history in which these norms were established.
    - distract8901 3y ago
      I'd characterize it as employers being extremely adversarial to unions because their goal is exploitation of workers. Unions have to be aggressive in response. Sure, I'll agree that our union system is not great, but I place the blame for this situation on employers.
    - smcg 3y ago
      It's very obvious now that unionized workers are better off than non-unionized workers in the same industry, and far far better off than contract workers.
  - brianwawok 3y ago
    Just about every American union is very much about a) Years at job = pay. Absolutely no pay increase or decrease for working harder or being better than average. b) You are near impossible to fire unless you do something really dumb (caught watching porn at work multiple times, punch someone). You can be far below average and kinda sorta do your factory job and keep it for life. Both are 1000000% against every fiber in my being, and would make me 100% never want to work at this kind of union. This is how like the autoworker and Police and teachers unions work. There is no reason say a programmer union couldn't exist with different tools. And it could totally allow merit based pay and all of that. So by absolutely no means do I say that all unions are bad. I just know the standard American Union does not get along with my life goals.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      I really appreciate this comment because it gets to the root of my unease with unions in the US. It's good for society, the individual, and the employer when people have room to grow/work harder/contribute more and be rewarded for it. When I hear pro-union talk around me, it does come packaged with "working any harder than the minimum is evil" vibe that I find disruptive on whatever level it is accepted. IE - if you accept "work the least possible" as an individual, you yourself will do poorly. If the organization is forced to accept it, it will decline against other domestic competitors. If the country is forced to accept it, it will decline against international competitors.
      - tokai 3y ago
        My union representative is currently working with my boss to get rid of an employee that isn't pulling their weight. It is harming both the company and colleagues when someone doesn't fulfill their duties. In the Nordic countries it is quite easy to get rid of workers, as the welfare state is supposed care for people til they find other work. It makes for a quite flexible labor market.
        bombcar 3y ago
        This is the missing link that I've rarely if ever seen in the USA - the Union needs to "police itself" so that they are guaranteeing a certain "value of labor". In the US the biggest group complaining about lazy union employees are the other union employees.
  - nimbius 3y ago
    hi there, IAM USA union member here. perhaps i can shed some light. our union helps us negotiate for health insurance, dental, life insurance and a 401k contribution from our employer. in the first year we had it, we negotiated other things too. we de-gendered our shop floor bathrooms, made the company replace burned out overhead lights and exit sign "stickers" with real, light up exit signs. we made sure the break room was well lit (formerly all the lights were burned out) and there was a way to get our money back from the vending machines which were basicaly one armed bandits. we changed the way our facilities maintenance teams work to make sure they put down warning signs if theyve mopped and made sure the bathrooms got serviced once a day. we made a 2 year plan to provide functional safety guards on all the older equipment (met and done in 8 months by our awesome machine shop!) and finally fix the parking lot lights so employees felt safe going home on second shift. these changes were also affected to non-union employees, mostly as a hold-the-line tactic to keep them from ever unionizing, but in the long run the company had to spend significant amounts of money on things that were traditionally deemed "non-essential" like toilet paper or exit signs.
    - cptcobalt 3y ago
      Seems like a lot of things that should not require a union to fix, but other policy should be in place for, like, having toilet paper and lights on
    - LinAGKar 3y ago
      Where's the bad part?
- r053bud 3y ago
  > American union are bad in a very particular way. Blanket statements require more explanation than this.
icepat 3y ago
North American style unions are radically different than Nordic style. Nordic ones are trade-specific more often than not, where as in North American they are predominantly company specific, with some exceptions like Electricians Unions in Canada. For example, the Engineer's Union (Verkfræðingafélag) has employees across the board. When you change jobs, you retain your union as long as you meet the criteria.
- catskul2 3y ago
  > where as in North American they are predominantly company specific... Why do you think that? I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. AFAIK, North American unions are not generally company specific. They are trade specific in most cases, and in the case of auto-workers it's mostly the UWA.
  - icepat 3y ago
    Could be entirely wrong, but that was my understanding from unionisation votes in companies, and discussions about forming unions at companies. How does it work in North America? There's a catch-all union in Iceland that everyone who is not trade specific falls into.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      Once again, I've never been in a union so I could be wrong, but that's for those locations to unionize and join one of these nation-wide unions. Depending on the place, its not even always company-wide votes. For instance, there was a push for a few Amazon warehouses to join a union. If those votes had passed, it would have been the workers at that location then represented by the union. And on top of that, its often only particular jobs that would fall under that union, not all jobs at that facility. That's why the auto companies are doing other layoffs these days, as there are other jobs at the factories that are not a part of the United Auto Workers and are not a part of the strike, but depend on the union workers working for their jobs to not pile up outputs or have no incoming tasks. Its not like all Ford or GM employees are a part of the United Auto Workers.
- 3y ago

tokai 3y ago

American union are bad in a very particular way. While unions in other countries can have issues, Americans can safely assume that they cannot map their experience with unions to other countries.

chollida1 3y ago
> American union are bad in a very particular way. Can you expand here?
- justrealist 3y ago
  American unions have an incredibly adversarial relationship with their employers in a way that European unions do not. (many) European unions are collaborative with their employers and act like they fundamentally want to help the business grow so there's more to share. American unions, even when they are not outright corrupt mafia-eque organizations (ie, longshoresmen), are purely extractive.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    I would argue you are correct in fact, but wrong in detail. The European unions were absolutely ball busters and they won. That’s why they’re not adversarial, they don’t need to be. Employers who don’t go along find them self with no labor force.
    - smcg 3y ago
      Europe didn't have nearly as brutal of an anti-labor crackdown as the US had in the 1870-1920s period.
  - grumple 3y ago
    Calling Americans unions purely extractive is not accurate. American unions fight for employee rights, including fair wages, time off, fair treatment, and employee safety. Unions do not want to bankrupt their employers, they just want to be treated fairly.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      What you're describing is extractive. They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". They are not attempting to balance those constraints. They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. It's OK to think that this is a good thing but this is not the same as a collaborative relationship, like you would have with coworkers or another team at a (non-dysfunctional) company.
      - standardUser 3y ago
        > They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them. > They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support. And what, precisely, do you think companies are doing?
        justrealist 3y ago
        I feel like you believe you are arguing with me, when I am simply describing how you think, vs how European unions think.
        standardUser 3y ago
        I was responding to an absurd misunderstanding of labor relations.
        nicoburns 3y ago
        > Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them. In Europe it is often the case that companies and unions have a genuinely collaborative relationship where the unions will take the company's needs into consideration, and the company will take the worker's needs into consideration. It doesn't always work out, and each party has their own priorities of course. But it is often not nearly so adversarial as it is in the US. That it is like this is to a large extent a cultural peculiarity of the US rather than an immutable truth. IF people (incl. those representing companies) were economically rational beings out to maximise their own short-term gain then that would be what would happen. But real people are not, and are often able to see that it creates a poorer, lower-trust society overall if they try to push for their immediate material needs too strongly. This is of course all backed up by the legal and political systems (which will step in if either side oversteps the mark too far), and a long history in which these norms were established.
  - distract8901 3y ago
    I'd characterize it as employers being extremely adversarial to unions because their goal is exploitation of workers. Unions have to be aggressive in response. Sure, I'll agree that our union system is not great, but I place the blame for this situation on employers.
  - smcg 3y ago
    It's very obvious now that unionized workers are better off than non-unionized workers in the same industry, and far far better off than contract workers.
- brianwawok 3y ago
  Just about every American union is very much about a) Years at job = pay. Absolutely no pay increase or decrease for working harder or being better than average. b) You are near impossible to fire unless you do something really dumb (caught watching porn at work multiple times, punch someone). You can be far below average and kinda sorta do your factory job and keep it for life. Both are 1000000% against every fiber in my being, and would make me 100% never want to work at this kind of union. This is how like the autoworker and Police and teachers unions work. There is no reason say a programmer union couldn't exist with different tools. And it could totally allow merit based pay and all of that. So by absolutely no means do I say that all unions are bad. I just know the standard American Union does not get along with my life goals.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    I really appreciate this comment because it gets to the root of my unease with unions in the US. It's good for society, the individual, and the employer when people have room to grow/work harder/contribute more and be rewarded for it. When I hear pro-union talk around me, it does come packaged with "working any harder than the minimum is evil" vibe that I find disruptive on whatever level it is accepted. IE - if you accept "work the least possible" as an individual, you yourself will do poorly. If the organization is forced to accept it, it will decline against other domestic competitors. If the country is forced to accept it, it will decline against international competitors.
    - tokai 3y ago
      My union representative is currently working with my boss to get rid of an employee that isn't pulling their weight. It is harming both the company and colleagues when someone doesn't fulfill their duties. In the Nordic countries it is quite easy to get rid of workers, as the welfare state is supposed care for people til they find other work. It makes for a quite flexible labor market.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        This is the missing link that I've rarely if ever seen in the USA - the Union needs to "police itself" so that they are guaranteeing a certain "value of labor". In the US the biggest group complaining about lazy union employees are the other union employees.
- nimbius 3y ago
  hi there, IAM USA union member here. perhaps i can shed some light. our union helps us negotiate for health insurance, dental, life insurance and a 401k contribution from our employer. in the first year we had it, we negotiated other things too. we de-gendered our shop floor bathrooms, made the company replace burned out overhead lights and exit sign "stickers" with real, light up exit signs. we made sure the break room was well lit (formerly all the lights were burned out) and there was a way to get our money back from the vending machines which were basicaly one armed bandits. we changed the way our facilities maintenance teams work to make sure they put down warning signs if theyve mopped and made sure the bathrooms got serviced once a day. we made a 2 year plan to provide functional safety guards on all the older equipment (met and done in 8 months by our awesome machine shop!) and finally fix the parking lot lights so employees felt safe going home on second shift. these changes were also affected to non-union employees, mostly as a hold-the-line tactic to keep them from ever unionizing, but in the long run the company had to spend significant amounts of money on things that were traditionally deemed "non-essential" like toilet paper or exit signs.
  - cptcobalt 3y ago
    Seems like a lot of things that should not require a union to fix, but other policy should be in place for, like, having toilet paper and lights on
  - LinAGKar 3y ago
    Where's the bad part?
r053bud 3y ago
> American union are bad in a very particular way. Blanket statements require more explanation than this.

icepat 3y ago

North American style unions are radically different than Nordic style. Nordic ones are trade-specific more often than not, where as in North American they are predominantly company specific, with some exceptions like Electricians Unions in Canada. For example, the Engineer's Union (Verkfræðingafélag) has employees across the board. When you change jobs, you retain your union as long as you meet the criteria.

catskul2 3y ago
> where as in North American they are predominantly company specific... Why do you think that? I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. AFAIK, North American unions are not generally company specific. They are trade specific in most cases, and in the case of auto-workers it's mostly the UWA.
- icepat 3y ago
  Could be entirely wrong, but that was my understanding from unionisation votes in companies, and discussions about forming unions at companies. How does it work in North America? There's a catch-all union in Iceland that everyone who is not trade specific falls into.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Once again, I've never been in a union so I could be wrong, but that's for those locations to unionize and join one of these nation-wide unions. Depending on the place, its not even always company-wide votes. For instance, there was a push for a few Amazon warehouses to join a union. If those votes had passed, it would have been the workers at that location then represented by the union. And on top of that, its often only particular jobs that would fall under that union, not all jobs at that facility. That's why the auto companies are doing other layoffs these days, as there are other jobs at the factories that are not a part of the United Auto Workers and are not a part of the strike, but depend on the union workers working for their jobs to not pile up outputs or have no incoming tasks. Its not like all Ford or GM employees are a part of the United Auto Workers.
3y ago