3 ms·

American unions have an incredibly adversarial relationship with their employers in a way that European unions do not. (many) European unions are collaborative

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.

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.