4 ms·

I've always disliked the monopolization aspect of unions. I think something like guilds would work much better where there are 5 or so that have to compete for

I've always disliked the monopolization aspect of unions. I think something like guilds would work much better where there are 5 or so that have to compete for employees. That way if the guild isn't working for you you can move to a different one or opt out all together.

dehrmann 3y ago
I wish I could give this move upvotes. Unions are labor monopolies, so there are a lot of missing positive incentives, while offering incentives for corruption. In the case of the UAW, it puts auto makers at a disadvantage because there's a single labor supplier they all buy from, so the supplier can play the automakers off each other. In the moment labor is currently having, you might argue that giving labor more power than business is good, but it's not; it's toxic to those businesses in the long term. You need balance between business and labor, and competing unions is a good way to solve this.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Unions are labor monopolies, so there are a lot of missing positive incentives, while offering incentives for corruption My employer has a monopoly on providing me with a paycheck, with tons of incentives for mistreatment and corruption. I'm told that if I dislike this, I should go find another job, or start my own company. Perhaps that could be the solution for someone who doesn't like their current job's union..?
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    > My employer has a monopoly on providing me with a paycheck Unless you're an astronaut or something, no, they don't. Go interview somewhere else. Go drive an uber. There are lots of other places to get a paycheck.
    - vkou 3y ago
      Anyone unhappy with their union could take that same advice.
      - dehrmann 3y ago
        Suppose you're an autoworker in Michigan who doesn't like the UAW. Is there another similar union you can join?
        vkou 3y ago
        Go interview somewhere else. Go drive an uber. There are lots of other places to get a paycheck. :)
        missedthecue 3y ago
        I don't get your argument. In this perspective, the union has the same problem that you accuse the company of having, but worse, because an autoworker has competition vying for his labor. GM, Ford, Stellantis, John Deere, Caterpillar, and all the other machinery manufacturers compete for his labor. But the union has no competition. In fact it's specifically exempt from anti-trust legislation.
        vkou 3y ago
        I get to vote on union policy, I don't get a vote in whatever idiotic policy-of-the-quarter some director five reporting levels above me decides to push, for his own self-serving interests. Those decisions are never data-driven, and are always some unholy amalgamation of industry-trend-chasing and some insane personal-politics-games that he's playing against his peers. My choices with a union are 'change it or take it, or leave it', my choices without a union are 'take it or leave it'. Flawed democracy versus flawed autocracy.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        This is neither here nor there. We are talking about monopolies. The fact that a given monopoly allows member voting does not change the fact that it's a monopoly, and carries with it all sorts of monopoly baggage, making it prone to corruption, mal-incentives, rent-seeking and other antisocial behaviour.
gs17 3y ago
I agree, but the issue is that the union really gains a lot of strength from controlling most/all the workers. If there were 5 equally popular guilds, a disagreement with one means only 20% of your workers stop, which isn't as big a deal as all of them being forced to stop work.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mrweasel 3y ago
The US unions are also plain weird. There shouldn't be a New York Times Tech Workers union, that makes zero sense. There needs to be a "software engineers union" or "Programmers Union", which covers employees from multiple companies. Part of the leverage a "normal" union would have is that if, say the New York Times, don't improve working conditions or act increasingly hostile, then the union can call on members in other similar companies to strike in order for their employer to put pressure on the New York Times. The small hyper localized union are silly and I can't imagine that they work all that well. The membership cost is also insane, but I suspect that's because they are tiny. Ideally the members at a company the size of the New York Times could be on strike indefinitely, being supported by the members of thousands of other companies.
- robswc 3y ago
  >There needs to be a "software engineers union" or "Programmers Union" I honestly hate the idea of that. If you don't like Meta or Google, you don't have to work there. I know lots of people that don't like the "defense" industry because it contributes to building weapons, so they refuse to work at those companies. What recourse does an employee/member have if the union publicly supports setting up (mock) guillotines? https://files.illinoispolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Screen-Shot-2020-08-31-at-11.19.13-AM.png https://files.illinoispolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/... What if you don't agree with their conduct or policies? You can't just go get another job if there's only one or two.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Same thing that happens if you don't agree with the democratic locality you live in. You participate in the process to get things changed.
    - robswc 3y ago
      I solved that problem by moving. >You participate in the process to get things changed Will a union compensate you participating? Having to fight against both your boss _and_ union sounds like a nightmare.
DrThunder 3y ago
Or you can have a competitive market where you just take your skills to a different employer. You're essentially just describing making the union a middle man to what you could on your own if you have marketable skills.

dehrmann 3y ago

I wish I could give this move upvotes. Unions are labor monopolies, so there are a lot of missing positive incentives, while offering incentives for corruption. In the case of the UAW, it puts auto makers at a disadvantage because there's a single labor supplier they all buy from, so the supplier can play the automakers off each other. In the moment labor is currently having, you might argue that giving labor more power than business is good, but it's not; it's toxic to those businesses in the long term. You need balance between business and labor, and competing unions is a good way to solve this.

vkou 3y ago
> Unions are labor monopolies, so there are a lot of missing positive incentives, while offering incentives for corruption My employer has a monopoly on providing me with a paycheck, with tons of incentives for mistreatment and corruption. I'm told that if I dislike this, I should go find another job, or start my own company. Perhaps that could be the solution for someone who doesn't like their current job's union..?
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > My employer has a monopoly on providing me with a paycheck Unless you're an astronaut or something, no, they don't. Go interview somewhere else. Go drive an uber. There are lots of other places to get a paycheck.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Anyone unhappy with their union could take that same advice.
    - dehrmann 3y ago
      Suppose you're an autoworker in Michigan who doesn't like the UAW. Is there another similar union you can join?
      - vkou 3y ago
        Go interview somewhere else. Go drive an uber. There are lots of other places to get a paycheck. :)
        missedthecue 3y ago
        I don't get your argument. In this perspective, the union has the same problem that you accuse the company of having, but worse, because an autoworker has competition vying for his labor. GM, Ford, Stellantis, John Deere, Caterpillar, and all the other machinery manufacturers compete for his labor. But the union has no competition. In fact it's specifically exempt from anti-trust legislation.
        vkou 3y ago
        I get to vote on union policy, I don't get a vote in whatever idiotic policy-of-the-quarter some director five reporting levels above me decides to push, for his own self-serving interests. Those decisions are never data-driven, and are always some unholy amalgamation of industry-trend-chasing and some insane personal-politics-games that he's playing against his peers. My choices with a union are 'change it or take it, or leave it', my choices without a union are 'take it or leave it'. Flawed democracy versus flawed autocracy.
        missedthecue 3y ago
        This is neither here nor there. We are talking about monopolies. The fact that a given monopoly allows member voting does not change the fact that it's a monopoly, and carries with it all sorts of monopoly baggage, making it prone to corruption, mal-incentives, rent-seeking and other antisocial behaviour.

gs17 3y ago

I agree, but the issue is that the union really gains a lot of strength from controlling most/all the workers. If there were 5 equally popular guilds, a disagreement with one means only 20% of your workers stop, which isn't as big a deal as all of them being forced to stop work.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mrweasel 3y ago

The US unions are also plain weird. There shouldn't be a New York Times Tech Workers union, that makes zero sense. There needs to be a "software engineers union" or "Programmers Union", which covers employees from multiple companies. Part of the leverage a "normal" union would have is that if, say the New York Times, don't improve working conditions or act increasingly hostile, then the union can call on members in other similar companies to strike in order for their employer to put pressure on the New York Times. The small hyper localized union are silly and I can't imagine that they work all that well. The membership cost is also insane, but I suspect that's because they are tiny. Ideally the members at a company the size of the New York Times could be on strike indefinitely, being supported by the members of thousands of other companies.

robswc 3y ago
>There needs to be a "software engineers union" or "Programmers Union" I honestly hate the idea of that. If you don't like Meta or Google, you don't have to work there. I know lots of people that don't like the "defense" industry because it contributes to building weapons, so they refuse to work at those companies. What recourse does an employee/member have if the union publicly supports setting up (mock) guillotines? https://files.illinoispolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Screen-Shot-2020-08-31-at-11.19.13-AM.png https://files.illinoispolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/... What if you don't agree with their conduct or policies? You can't just go get another job if there's only one or two.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Same thing that happens if you don't agree with the democratic locality you live in. You participate in the process to get things changed.
  - robswc 3y ago
    I solved that problem by moving. >You participate in the process to get things changed Will a union compensate you participating? Having to fight against both your boss _and_ union sounds like a nightmare.

DrThunder 3y ago

Or you can have a competitive market where you just take your skills to a different employer. You're essentially just describing making the union a middle man to what you could on your own if you have marketable skills.