4 ms·

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 betw

by 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.
- virgildotcodes 3y ago
  I'd say corporations and their wealthy owners, far more than any other factor, are responsible for the anti-union sentiment in the US.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - SonicScrub 3y ago
    I feel like this is a very convenient scapegoat for American unions to avoid looking internally at their own flaws. Many Americans have negative opinions of unions. Corporations and their wealthy owners have certainly put a lot of money to influence public opinion this way, but they aren't omnipotent. These efforts would be laughable off if the value-add of the union was readily-apparent. Dismissing anyone's negative opinion of a union as being the victim of a propaganda campaign is infantilizing, and dismissive of lived-experiences. My negative opinion of a union came from my own direct experience as being part of a mega-union that crossed multiple industries. The structure of the union was such that they were so divorced from the actual work being done that they could not possibly help us. Advancement meant playing the union political game, and not being good at your job. They were a constant thorn in all of our sides. I try to limit my disdain to that union in particular (not all unions are like this). But your comment dismissing concerns such as these fault of the business sound incredibly tone deaf. And as a result will not lead to a positive opinion of unions in America.
    - virgildotcodes 3y ago
      I was talking about the predominant contributing factor to anti-union sentiment in the US, not that there aren't legitimate gripes against unions. When looking at the vast amount of energy and resources dedicated by the wealthy and by corporations over the last hundred years to crush unions in the US, the government going so far as to murder strikers and violently oppose them on behalf of those interests, legislation like the Taft-Hartley act, etc etc. -- it seems clear to me that forces external and opposed to the unions are far more influential in the erosion of those unions than legitimate internal gripes by union members.
ttymck 3y ago
> reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors Except for, ostensibly, employee satisfaction and quality of life?
banannaise 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. This is how companies treat enterprise bargaining. It is rarely true. Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours. But executives/corporations don't see it this way - they see this all of this as a power game, and every union demand they agree to is a fight lost.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  I think that reality is always more nuanced than partisan talking points. Both unions and corps make good points about certain things and exaggerate others for their own benefit.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours. In cases where this is actually true, the company would be offering these things of its own volition -- as happens in many industries without unions. So then what would you need the union for? You could obviously have poorly managed companies that get this wrong, but then they would be at a competitive disadvantage in the market. Where this more often doesn't happen is in the places where it isn't true. There are some jobs where worker productivity isn't that salient -- or is only relevant to the extent that it allows the company to employ fewer people, which is the sort of thing a union would then try to prevent.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> 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. That's assuming the company/industry doesn't have competitors in other countries.

by nabla9 3y ago

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.

virgildotcodes 3y ago
I'd say corporations and their wealthy owners, far more than any other factor, are responsible for the anti-union sentiment in the US.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  [flagged]
- SonicScrub 3y ago
  I feel like this is a very convenient scapegoat for American unions to avoid looking internally at their own flaws. Many Americans have negative opinions of unions. Corporations and their wealthy owners have certainly put a lot of money to influence public opinion this way, but they aren't omnipotent. These efforts would be laughable off if the value-add of the union was readily-apparent. Dismissing anyone's negative opinion of a union as being the victim of a propaganda campaign is infantilizing, and dismissive of lived-experiences. My negative opinion of a union came from my own direct experience as being part of a mega-union that crossed multiple industries. The structure of the union was such that they were so divorced from the actual work being done that they could not possibly help us. Advancement meant playing the union political game, and not being good at your job. They were a constant thorn in all of our sides. I try to limit my disdain to that union in particular (not all unions are like this). But your comment dismissing concerns such as these fault of the business sound incredibly tone deaf. And as a result will not lead to a positive opinion of unions in America.
  - virgildotcodes 3y ago
    I was talking about the predominant contributing factor to anti-union sentiment in the US, not that there aren't legitimate gripes against unions. When looking at the vast amount of energy and resources dedicated by the wealthy and by corporations over the last hundred years to crush unions in the US, the government going so far as to murder strikers and violently oppose them on behalf of those interests, legislation like the Taft-Hartley act, etc etc. -- it seems clear to me that forces external and opposed to the unions are far more influential in the erosion of those unions than legitimate internal gripes by union members.

ttymck 3y ago

> reduces competitive edge against non-union competitors Except for, ostensibly, employee satisfaction and quality of life?

banannaise 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. This is how companies treat enterprise bargaining. It is rarely true. Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours. But executives/corporations don't see it this way - they see this all of this as a power game, and every union demand they agree to is a fight lost.

edgyquant 3y ago
I think that reality is always more nuanced than partisan talking points. Both unions and corps make good points about certain things and exaggerate others for their own benefit.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Unions are often after things that benefit both sides. Safety improvements both protect the workers and shield the company from both injury liability and material losses due to accidents. More generous leave policies and more worker-friendly hours result in happier, healthier, better rested, and therefore more productive workers, which can easily balance out the small reduction in total hours. In cases where this is actually true, the company would be offering these things of its own volition -- as happens in many industries without unions. So then what would you need the union for? You could obviously have poorly managed companies that get this wrong, but then they would be at a competitive disadvantage in the market. Where this more often doesn't happen is in the places where it isn't true. There are some jobs where worker productivity isn't that salient -- or is only relevant to the extent that it allows the company to employ fewer people, which is the sort of thing a union would then try to prevent.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> 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. That's assuming the company/industry doesn't have competitors in other countries.