5 ms·

Also they forget that on average they are pretty benign. At least in my field they ask for quite tame things. And them being same union for everyone means that

by Ekaros 3y ago

Also they forget that on average they are pretty benign. At least in my field they ask for quite tame things. And them being same union for everyone means that you don't really lose much to competitors. As they will have same rules in place...

VoxPelli 3y ago
Yeah, the idea of the Swedish model being that it’s better for employers and workers union to decide details as then they can be adapted to the need of every specific field rather than be dictated by the government and be the same for all. Makes for a much more agile, progressive and cooperative environment that benefits both businesses and workers. Unions in Sweden don’t try to get paid the most possible by the employers – they want fair wages and healthy companies and together with employer organizations they try to make up rules that benefit both, as healthy companies and happy workers are beneficial for all parties
- DanielHB 3y ago
  I had 3.5% union-agreed raise this year against an almost 10% inflation year-on-year. In Sweden the unions are not out to screw the employers over, the unions know the companies are under stress due to market downturn and share the burden with employees. Before the downturn I consistently had at least 1% raise above inflation for several years.
  - dv_dt 3y ago
    That seems like it supports the principle of shared pain and shared profit and it’s good that the laws and company/union structure supports that. I think it’s better for stable long term stability and growth of a nation.
    - Moru 3y ago
      Can you tell Musk etc this? They havn't gotten the message yet. McDonads got it after trying on the Danish union though and is playing ball.
nabla9 3y ago
Good point. Sweden has better institutions and labor laws to reduce friction and enable cooperation. Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible. In sectoral bargaining, unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts representing corporations. When nobody gets competitive edge over others, there is less downside for agreeing.
- VoxPelli 3y ago
  And when the government is in on it as well and gives the unions and employer organizations room to be innovative and flexible with one another, then it’s even a net gain over having the government giving detailed guidelines for everything
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible. I suppose they will always hide behind “competitive” edge. The more naked truth seems to be that between the stakeholders of the CEO+board of directors v.s. workers—avoiding the nebolous “company interest”—there is always inherently a zero sum game. Like one of the automative CEOs in the US who boasted about how she was paid according to her performance—her performance being, among other things, directly related to how low she could keep wages for the rank and file.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Yes, there is always a competition between workers and owners for money. However, The structure of US unions also change the incentives.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I would also add that many (most?) European countries allow multiple unions in the same shop, with worker choice. Inter-union competition is important to keep unions honest and aligned with their workers. I think this more than anything else is responsible for the anti-union sentiment in the US.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> Also they forget that on average they are pretty benign. They are not malign as far as I’ve heard, no.

by Ekaros 3y ago

VoxPelli 3y ago

Yeah, the idea of the Swedish model being that it’s better for employers and workers union to decide details as then they can be adapted to the need of every specific field rather than be dictated by the government and be the same for all. Makes for a much more agile, progressive and cooperative environment that benefits both businesses and workers. Unions in Sweden don’t try to get paid the most possible by the employers – they want fair wages and healthy companies and together with employer organizations they try to make up rules that benefit both, as healthy companies and happy workers are beneficial for all parties

DanielHB 3y ago
I had 3.5% union-agreed raise this year against an almost 10% inflation year-on-year. In Sweden the unions are not out to screw the employers over, the unions know the companies are under stress due to market downturn and share the burden with employees. Before the downturn I consistently had at least 1% raise above inflation for several years.
- dv_dt 3y ago
  That seems like it supports the principle of shared pain and shared profit and it’s good that the laws and company/union structure supports that. I think it’s better for stable long term stability and growth of a nation.
  - Moru 3y ago
    Can you tell Musk etc this? They havn't gotten the message yet. McDonads got it after trying on the Danish union though and is playing ball.

nabla9 3y ago

Good point. Sweden has better institutions and labor laws to reduce friction and enable cooperation. Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible. In sectoral bargaining, unions negotiate same deal with their counterparts representing corporations. When nobody gets competitive edge over others, there is less downside for agreeing.

VoxPelli 3y ago
And when the government is in on it as well and gives the unions and employer organizations room to be innovative and flexible with one another, then it’s even a net gain over having the government giving detailed guidelines for everything
avgcorrection 3y ago
> Enterprise bargaining in the US is more zero sum game between companies and workers. Everything you give to workers, reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors. It's in company interest to fight unions as much as possible. I suppose they will always hide behind “competitive” edge. The more naked truth seems to be that between the stakeholders of the CEO+board of directors v.s. workers—avoiding the nebolous “company interest”—there is always inherently a zero sum game. Like one of the automative CEOs in the US who boasted about how she was paid according to her performance—her performance being, among other things, directly related to how low she could keep wages for the rank and file.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Yes, there is always a competition between workers and owners for money. However, The structure of US unions also change the incentives.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I would also add that many (most?) European countries allow multiple unions in the same shop, with worker choice. Inter-union competition is important to keep unions honest and aligned with their workers. I think this more than anything else is responsible for the anti-union sentiment in the US.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> Also they forget that on average they are pretty benign. They are not malign as far as I’ve heard, no.