5 ms·

> There's a few people choosing to be obtuse in the comments ("the only person 'allowed' to cover for you is another union member": correct, because otherwise i

> There's a few people choosing to be obtuse in the comments ("the only person 'allowed' to cover for you is another union member": correct, because otherwise it's an ersatz way to break a union) I will take a bite. How is it being obtuse? Sure, you can call it as a way to break union. That doesn’t change the fact that this sounds like a ridiculous and inefficient setup, because it is. If your defense for a silly workplace setup is “that silly setup is to avoid union-breaking, because if we didn’t have that silly setup, that would be union-breaking”, it isn’t as strong of a defense as you think. If anything, it is pretty much the perfect ammo for anti-union sentiments. Because you are essentially saying that those inefficiencies and silly setups are required for unionized workplaces (similar to the one in the OP, not talking about film or athlete or police unions) to continue existing.

refulgentis 3y ago
Thanks for biting (?) TL;DR: it's a multi-turn game. If this wasn't a provision, you could just hire N=X employees to replace the X employees that unionized, then lay off the unionized employees. This used to happen, hence why it's a standard provision in collective bargaining. It's inefficient if you fire employees en masse. (the particulars in the article are quite damning re: firing en masse, receive PPP loan to not fire, then stonks)
- filoleg 3y ago
  I agree with your last paragraph, there is quite a good bit of mismanagement happening there that led to firing en masse and other things. The thing is, their union didn’t prevent that from happening, but it did add that silly inefficient setup mentioned above. The question is, how is this a good thing?
- mft_ 3y ago
  It appears there's a vicious cycle of sorts going on. If all unions did was keep a reasonable eye on safety and (let's say) sensible workers' rights, while also offering a simple outlet for collective bargaining, I'm not sure many employers would have a problem. But we now seem to be in a position where the unions are protecting their very existence with provisions such as the one discussed that (at least at face value) seem nonsensical; and sadly these provisions become the reason that otherwise sympathetic folks start to understand why an employer might want rid of a union. (I've seen other examples of such silliness; setting up a venue for a large meeting in the US was far more time-consuming and frustrating than it otherwise might have been, because certain tasks on the project plan [some quite trivial] could only be performed by union members, who of course were not always aligned and available with the non-union workers.)
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    > I'm not sure many employers would have a problem. Why would you be sure of this? Employers (i.e. people in power) will always resist change that in any way could lesson their power. Like the ability to tell people to work in unsafe conditions, or get them to work hours without pay (wage theft). This is especially true when they can pocket the money themselves. As a counter-point, can anyone think of examples of complete nonsense rules that employers in non-union workplaces enforce?

refulgentis 3y ago

Thanks for biting (?) TL;DR: it's a multi-turn game. If this wasn't a provision, you could just hire N=X employees to replace the X employees that unionized, then lay off the unionized employees. This used to happen, hence why it's a standard provision in collective bargaining. It's inefficient if you fire employees en masse. (the particulars in the article are quite damning re: firing en masse, receive PPP loan to not fire, then stonks)

filoleg 3y ago
I agree with your last paragraph, there is quite a good bit of mismanagement happening there that led to firing en masse and other things. The thing is, their union didn’t prevent that from happening, but it did add that silly inefficient setup mentioned above. The question is, how is this a good thing?
mft_ 3y ago
It appears there's a vicious cycle of sorts going on. If all unions did was keep a reasonable eye on safety and (let's say) sensible workers' rights, while also offering a simple outlet for collective bargaining, I'm not sure many employers would have a problem. But we now seem to be in a position where the unions are protecting their very existence with provisions such as the one discussed that (at least at face value) seem nonsensical; and sadly these provisions become the reason that otherwise sympathetic folks start to understand why an employer might want rid of a union. (I've seen other examples of such silliness; setting up a venue for a large meeting in the US was far more time-consuming and frustrating than it otherwise might have been, because certain tasks on the project plan [some quite trivial] could only be performed by union members, who of course were not always aligned and available with the non-union workers.)
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  > I'm not sure many employers would have a problem. Why would you be sure of this? Employers (i.e. people in power) will always resist change that in any way could lesson their power. Like the ability to tell people to work in unsafe conditions, or get them to work hours without pay (wage theft). This is especially true when they can pocket the money themselves. As a counter-point, can anyone think of examples of complete nonsense rules that employers in non-union workplaces enforce?