5 ms·

> 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?

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?