4 ms·

American unions are not like European unions. In Europe sectoral unions and sectoral bargaining is the norm. In the US federal law does not allow that. Each fi

• mandmandam 3y ago
  > In the US federal law does not allow that If I understand correctly, this isn't true. There are laws that make this effectively true, but that's not quite the same thing. For example, secondary boycotts are banned. This limits the rights of workers and unions to freely associate and mobilize for their interests. That little doozy was rationalized by the excuse of protecting the economy (read: the status quo). Ianal, and idk if this is a distinction without a difference; but it seems worth pointing out.
  • nabla9 3y ago
    I may be wrong, but I think it's the other way around. The law allows only company-level unionization, but there are ways to get effective sectoral bargaining agreements sometimes. In Europe, we have laws that encourage it. For example, Finland has generally applicable collective agreements. If a large representative majority of workers achieve agreement with enterprise representatives in an industry sector, the agreement can become generally applicable. Every employer must observe at least the minimum provisions of a wide national collective agreement once it's considered representative in the relevant sector. (Finland does not have laws about minimum wage. There is very little need for them because generally applicable agreements set the minimums.)
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Draiken 3y ago
  Wouldn't Tesla be supporting UAW if that was 100% accurate? AFAIR Tesla follows the typical US corporation stance of "kill it with fire" against unions. A sick version of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
  • jerf 3y ago
    "Wouldn't Tesla be supporting UAW if that was 100% accurate?" How do you know they aren't? They wouldn't exactly run out to the press and yell "HEY EVERYONE WHO ISN'T WORKING FOR US JOIN THE UAW". I'm not saying they are; I'm asking, how do you know they aren't?
    • Draiken 3y ago
      I don't. I guess you're right that even if they did, they'd do so without publicity. I've seen arguments saying they are still against it, because in the long run, if UAW workers get way better salaries/benefits than Tesla workers, they'll unionize or leave for a union job regardless. In other words: they want to keep exploiting their workers as much as possible for as long as possible.
  • jonnycomputer 3y ago
    The monarchs of Europe, often bitter rivals, united to oppose democratic movements in the 18th and 19th centuries.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• DanielHB 3y ago
  Just a factual example, in Sweden this year the union agreed wage increase for IT workers was 3.5% against an almost 10% inflation year-on-year and almost everyone is unionised. In an unionised sector in the US this would have been cause for immediate strikes. In Sweden (and many other european countries) unions work with government and companies to make the business succeed and that success be spread to the employees, this means the bad times are also amortised by the workers as well. It is not perfect but it is not a zero-sum game which keeps both sides more aligned. I wish I could have had a 10% raise to match inflation, but I have been getting ~1% raises above inflation for the past several years so it kinda makes up for it.
  • pstuart 3y ago
    That seems to be the way to do it -- shared success and responsibility, vs America's approach of "I've got mine, Jack"
• greenie_beans 3y ago
  > If UAW wins, unionized enterprises lose to Tesla. how does that work?
  • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > how does that work? Their costs are higher. (So far, I haven't seen evidence of higher productivity among unionized auto workers sufficient to make up for the cost gap.)
    • greenie_beans 3y ago
      i don't see how uaw bargaining is good for tesla. that just sounds like capitalist logic with unsubstantiated data. wouldn't higher wages at a ford factory will force telsa to match those wages if they want to be competitive in the labor market? maybe the owning class should take less profit so the consumer doesn't have to take on that extra cost, but unfortunately the incentive structure of capitalist enterprise doesn't work like that.
      • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > higher wages at a ford factory will force telsa to match those wages if they want to be competitive in the labor market Given perfect mobility, yes. But the labor market Tesla and foreign manufacturers in the United States compete in are separate from those of the UAW's. The evidence for this is in their present labor cost differential: $45 and 55/hour for Tesla and Toyota, respectively, vs $65/hour for UAW factories, en route to $100+ [1]. Keep in mind, too, that union jobs are supply constrained. The UAW represents about 200,000 automotive workers [2]. That's a fifth of all motor vehicles and parts manufacturing workers [3]. > maybe the owning class should take less profit so the consumer doesn't have to take on that extra cost It's going the other way. Tesla can cut prices to below where Detroit can turn a profit. That matters when the latter are asking for capital to fund their investments. One solution would be to tax non-union produced cars such as to equalize the gap. But again, that would require a state to trade their consumers' welfare for another's employees'. A better one is to pass into law worker protections for all Americans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Auto_Workers_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Auto_Workers_strik... [2] https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1206209107/united-auto-workers-union-uaw-membership-grad-students-big-3-strike https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1206209107/united-auto-worker... [3] https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm
• throwboatyface 3y ago
  This is not correct. The current UAW strike is to get back benefits the union voluntarily gave up during the 2008 recession because they wanted to keep the Big 3 alive. The union is absolutely willing to bargain in a way that is beneficial to both employees and the companies long term.
  • s1artibartfast 3y ago
    They had 4 day work weeks at full pay before 2008?
  • jp57 3y ago
    What about SAG-AFTRA and WGA? These seem like sectoral unions. Actors and writers move between projects owned by different companies but continue to be protected by the same union.
• vwoolf 3y ago
  Perhaps union infestations help explain Europe's sclerotic economic performance, relative to the U.S.'s: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/at-least-five-interesting-things-b4e https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/at-least-five-interesting-thin...
  • yanderekko 3y ago
    A growing number of Americans consider sclerosis to be a virtue, as long as it can be seen as a natural result of extreme safetyism.
  • gosub100 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • ak217 3y ago
    Can't downvote this due to comment age but please don't use unnecessarily inflammatory language. You and I both have issues with unions but they are not "infestations"
• fzeroracer 3y ago
  Companies play zero sum games against workers regardless of the existence of unions. Do you know how many times I've heard that a company I work for has posted record profits, but can't supply the yearly bonus because we gotta tighten up the belt on spending? If companies were less abusive and not ran by sociopaths in the US we wouldn't see the acceleration of unionization like we are.