7 ms·

I would always rather be in a union than not. Sometimes unions can be opaque or byzantine especially in older industries, but what is always opaque is managemen

I would always rather be in a union than not. Sometimes unions can be opaque or byzantine especially in older industries, but what is always opaque is management. Having fair pay and time off is something I’d rather not leave to whoever happens to sit in the chair above me, because who sits in the chair above me can change on a whim. Congrats to the Fastmail team!

brightball 3y ago
As long as there's an option to not be in the union, it's completely fine IMO. In a free market, the best option will win. When non-union jobs are better than union jobs the need for the union should vanish (in theory).
- vlovich123 3y ago
  You realize how collective bargaining breaks down when you aren’t a united front right?
  - brightball 3y ago
    If you are forced to be in the union, you're not united...you're coerced. If you choose to be, you are.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      I’m forced to pay taxes to the government and can’t opt out. Can still recognize that on balance it’s better in terms of building a larger, stable, more robust society than we’d have otherwise even with all the downsides that come with that coercion.
      - brightball 3y ago
        And yet, if you disagree you can still opt out of paying those taxes...by moving. Don't like the way your city, county or state spends the tax money? You can vote to change it or you can move. You can even do it nationally by moving to another country that you think does it better. We still get a choice. On balance, having a choice is always better than the alternative.
        vlovich123 3y ago
        That’s a specious argument because you can equally say “You can choose by switching industries or going to a non-union employer or starting your own company”. In fact all of those can be easier than moving. Have you actually tried emigrating? Often not so easy unless you’re rich or have links to another country. In fact, it’s easier to join a non-union job than it is to move to a country without any form of taxation.
  - zbyte64 3y ago
    I don't understand how people perceive corporations as an individual that seeks to negotiate with you on neutral grounds.
    - brightball 3y ago
      They don't. But supply and demand still wins. A union may be necessary if there is a monopoly on employment. Nuclear power facilities for example.
      - zbyte64 3y ago
        Without unions, the logic of supply and demand favors larger businesses because they have greater purchasing power - they are already operating as a collective!
        brightball 3y ago
        How do you figure? They have to compete against other businesses to hire skilled positions. They have to create an appealing enough opportunity to get people to apply and continue to work there.
        zbyte64 3y ago
        > They have to compete against other businesses to hire skilled positions. Yes, but because they are a collective when they "purchase" skilled positions they are usually asking for more than one hire. Yes they are competing against other businesses, and the perspective hires are competing against the other hires. By the numbers, there are fewer businesses hiring then there are workers looking for that position. In other words, the businesses have more leverage then the workers in the form of purchasing power. The laws of supply and demand favor the business if there are no unions. Edit: FYI: supply and demand for labor is equal when unemployment is at 0%.
- ztetranz 3y ago
  >In a free market, the best option will win. I'm not sure if you mean that generally or just around employment and unions. If you mean it generally then, just as a random example, should we make emission control on cars an optional extra? Let the free market customer decide if they want to pay extra for a catalytic converter.
  - brightball 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting that laws and regulations should cease to exist. That would be anarchy.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The evidence doesn’t support this claim, and is why over 1000 VW workers in Tennessee indicated their intent to join the UAW after the UAW won historic benefits from automakers.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >and is why over 1000 VW workers in Tennessee indicated their intent to join the UAW out of how many workers total?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      3800. Simple majority wins when they vote, so less than another 1000 to go.
  - brightball 3y ago
    Which claim? > In a free market, the best option will win. When non-union jobs are better than union jobs the need for the union should vanish (in theory). If UAW is the best option and people want to join it...that is the best option winning.
- BoiledCabbage 3y ago
  It's not a free market. Corporations perform collective bargaining. Eliminate collective bargaining for a corporations, and then it would make sense to see things on an equal playing field. The reason why employees jump from one company to another for salary boosts is because a corporation collectively bargains for salary, and this happens less so between different companies. When an employee can just as easily pit one manager at a FAANG against another manager to bid for their salary to get a boost, as they can get a higher offer at another company to get a boost then this situation will be resolved. As long as companies can say "you'll keep the same level and pay regardless of where you transfer within the company" because they've agreed to not complete against each other and instead collectively bargain for salary (and benefits) it will be an imbalance. And the only counterbalance is for employees to do the same. The need for collective bargaining of labor is to balance the presense of collective bargaining by management.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Companies coordinating pay and benefits, anti-poaching agreements, etc. are all anti-competitive and illegal. So I'm not sure "corporations perform collective bargaining" is accurate.
    - bigbillheck 3y ago
      > are ... illegal. So's murder, and yet that still happens.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      And yet all of FAANG has done exactly that like three times
    - ath3nd 3y ago
      Have you not seen the coordinated layoffs in tech the last 1.5 years? How is that not collective bargaining against tech talent? They all used every excuse they have: overhiring, wars, inflation (which they partially helped create) to flood the market TOGETHER, thereby reducing the price of our labor. All while racking in record profits. All that perfectly legal, all that a form of them collectively bargaining to lower our labor value.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  “In a free market, the best option will win” There is no free market. Everything is skewed to give an advantage to employers and capitalists.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? Sounds like freedom of association with me. You wouldn't complain about a corporation signing an exclusive contract with another corporation (even for supplying labor), why is it a problem when it's a collective of workers imposing that restriction rather than a corporation? Is the free market only for corporations? Does everyone else have to just take what they can get individually?
  - brightball 3y ago
    In most countries, I would imagine any agreement that prevented the hiring of a specific group of people would run afoul of discrimination laws.
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      In the United States, that only applies to specifically discriminating against protected classes. It would not apply to my hypothetical, except that "right-to-work" laws in many states specifically prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        Federal law and jurisprudence prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements. So called right to work laws allow non members to opt out of paying for the representation unions are compelled to provide.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? > Sounds like freedom of association with me. Hey as long as it goes both ways. It would equally be freedom of association to fire any union employees. Oh wait, that's illegal. So instead of that, a fair compromise is that it should be equally illegal for firing someone either if they join or don't union a union. That's what right to work laws do. They give equal protections to both union and non union employees.
- taurath 3y ago
  When employees have as much power as employers, there can be a free market. Without some form of employee power structure, that will never happen. Alas - only the very top percentage of employees in top industries can demand practically anything from an employer. Otherwise, why would so many workers be working for low wages without time off?

brightball 3y ago

As long as there's an option to not be in the union, it's completely fine IMO. In a free market, the best option will win. When non-union jobs are better than union jobs the need for the union should vanish (in theory).

vlovich123 3y ago
You realize how collective bargaining breaks down when you aren’t a united front right?
- brightball 3y ago
  If you are forced to be in the union, you're not united...you're coerced. If you choose to be, you are.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    I’m forced to pay taxes to the government and can’t opt out. Can still recognize that on balance it’s better in terms of building a larger, stable, more robust society than we’d have otherwise even with all the downsides that come with that coercion.
    - brightball 3y ago
      And yet, if you disagree you can still opt out of paying those taxes...by moving. Don't like the way your city, county or state spends the tax money? You can vote to change it or you can move. You can even do it nationally by moving to another country that you think does it better. We still get a choice. On balance, having a choice is always better than the alternative.
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        That’s a specious argument because you can equally say “You can choose by switching industries or going to a non-union employer or starting your own company”. In fact all of those can be easier than moving. Have you actually tried emigrating? Often not so easy unless you’re rich or have links to another country. In fact, it’s easier to join a non-union job than it is to move to a country without any form of taxation.
- zbyte64 3y ago
  I don't understand how people perceive corporations as an individual that seeks to negotiate with you on neutral grounds.
  - brightball 3y ago
    They don't. But supply and demand still wins. A union may be necessary if there is a monopoly on employment. Nuclear power facilities for example.
    - zbyte64 3y ago
      Without unions, the logic of supply and demand favors larger businesses because they have greater purchasing power - they are already operating as a collective!
      - brightball 3y ago
        How do you figure? They have to compete against other businesses to hire skilled positions. They have to create an appealing enough opportunity to get people to apply and continue to work there.
        zbyte64 3y ago
        > They have to compete against other businesses to hire skilled positions. Yes, but because they are a collective when they "purchase" skilled positions they are usually asking for more than one hire. Yes they are competing against other businesses, and the perspective hires are competing against the other hires. By the numbers, there are fewer businesses hiring then there are workers looking for that position. In other words, the businesses have more leverage then the workers in the form of purchasing power. The laws of supply and demand favor the business if there are no unions. Edit: FYI: supply and demand for labor is equal when unemployment is at 0%.
ztetranz 3y ago
>In a free market, the best option will win. I'm not sure if you mean that generally or just around employment and unions. If you mean it generally then, just as a random example, should we make emission control on cars an optional extra? Let the free market customer decide if they want to pay extra for a catalytic converter.
- brightball 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting that laws and regulations should cease to exist. That would be anarchy.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
The evidence doesn’t support this claim, and is why over 1000 VW workers in Tennessee indicated their intent to join the UAW after the UAW won historic benefits from automakers.
- gruez 3y ago
  >and is why over 1000 VW workers in Tennessee indicated their intent to join the UAW out of how many workers total?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    3800. Simple majority wins when they vote, so less than another 1000 to go.
- brightball 3y ago
  Which claim? > In a free market, the best option will win. When non-union jobs are better than union jobs the need for the union should vanish (in theory). If UAW is the best option and people want to join it...that is the best option winning.
BoiledCabbage 3y ago
It's not a free market. Corporations perform collective bargaining. Eliminate collective bargaining for a corporations, and then it would make sense to see things on an equal playing field. The reason why employees jump from one company to another for salary boosts is because a corporation collectively bargains for salary, and this happens less so between different companies. When an employee can just as easily pit one manager at a FAANG against another manager to bid for their salary to get a boost, as they can get a higher offer at another company to get a boost then this situation will be resolved. As long as companies can say "you'll keep the same level and pay regardless of where you transfer within the company" because they've agreed to not complete against each other and instead collectively bargain for salary (and benefits) it will be an imbalance. And the only counterbalance is for employees to do the same. The need for collective bargaining of labor is to balance the presense of collective bargaining by management.
- pc86 3y ago
  Companies coordinating pay and benefits, anti-poaching agreements, etc. are all anti-competitive and illegal. So I'm not sure "corporations perform collective bargaining" is accurate.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    > are ... illegal. So's murder, and yet that still happens.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    And yet all of FAANG has done exactly that like three times
  - ath3nd 3y ago
    Have you not seen the coordinated layoffs in tech the last 1.5 years? How is that not collective bargaining against tech talent? They all used every excuse they have: overhiring, wars, inflation (which they partially helped create) to flood the market TOGETHER, thereby reducing the price of our labor. All while racking in record profits. All that perfectly legal, all that a form of them collectively bargaining to lower our labor value.
rqtwteye 3y ago
“In a free market, the best option will win” There is no free market. Everything is skewed to give an advantage to employers and capitalists.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? Sounds like freedom of association with me. You wouldn't complain about a corporation signing an exclusive contract with another corporation (even for supplying labor), why is it a problem when it's a collective of workers imposing that restriction rather than a corporation? Is the free market only for corporations? Does everyone else have to just take what they can get individually?
- brightball 3y ago
  In most countries, I would imagine any agreement that prevented the hiring of a specific group of people would run afoul of discrimination laws.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    In the United States, that only applies to specifically discriminating against protected classes. It would not apply to my hypothetical, except that "right-to-work" laws in many states specifically prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      Federal law and jurisprudence prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements. So called right to work laws allow non members to opt out of paying for the representation unions are compelled to provide.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? > Sounds like freedom of association with me. Hey as long as it goes both ways. It would equally be freedom of association to fire any union employees. Oh wait, that's illegal. So instead of that, a fair compromise is that it should be equally illegal for firing someone either if they join or don't union a union. That's what right to work laws do. They give equal protections to both union and non union employees.
taurath 3y ago
When employees have as much power as employers, there can be a free market. Without some form of employee power structure, that will never happen. Alas - only the very top percentage of employees in top industries can demand practically anything from an employer. Otherwise, why would so many workers be working for low wages without time off?