5 ms·

The fact that companies tell you that you don't need a union and they'll spend millions to union-bust or to avoid union certification should tell you everything

by jmyeet 2y ago

The fact that companies tell you that you don't need a union and they'll spend millions to union-bust or to avoid union certification should tell you everything you need to know: vote "yes" to the union if it comes up in your workplace and join. The company is not your friend. Just compare earnings by workers at the Big 3 who are represented by the UAW and Tesla workers who are non-unionized [1]. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-gm-stellantis-pay-raise-uaw-contract-tesla-labor-costs-2023-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-gm-stellantis-pay-raise...

lolinder 2y ago
> The fact that companies tell you that you don't need a union and they'll spend millions to union-bust or to avoid union certification should tell you everything you need to know: vote "yes" to the union if it comes up in your workplace and join. This isn't entirely logical. Companies also spend millions to fight off patent trolls, but that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that you should team up with the trolls or that patent law doesn't need to be reformed after all. Something can be bad for you and bad for the company, so evidence of harm to the company is not sufficient to prove benefit to you. Personally (speaking as a software engineer), if unionization is ever raised my plan is to look into all the details of the plan and weigh my options. I'm disinclined to trust any claim that something is always good or always bad, so I take the pro-union propaganda with the same salt as the anti-.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  All your analogy says is there are 2 sides to every fight. in the co-vs-union case, one of those sides is the company’s employees (you). That means the company’s interests are opposite to yours when they fight unionization. You might be skeptical of the union side, but the company is doing whatever will let them pay you less and/or exert more undemocratic control over you.
  - matrix87 2y ago
    > will let them pay you less and/or exert more undemocratic control over you. the latter isn't necessarily bad for the worker, e.g. if a tech union tries to force divestment from Israel if more money for workers is involved, sure, I'm with you. but I kind of doubt it. If the (tech) union spends more effort pushing political things unrelated to money, best of luck to them. for unions outside of tech, this seems like less of an issue
    - cool_dude85 2y ago
      In America, it is illegal for a union to bargain for things like not doing business with Israel. The union can put out statements about how they don't support trade with Israel, etc. and hope that management takes the feelings of its employee union seriously, but how often do you think that happens?
      - tadfisher 2y ago
        The law prevent businesses from boycotting Israel, they don't say anything about divestment.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > All your analogy says is there are 2 sides to every fight. in the co-vs-union case, one of those sides is the company’s employees (you). That means the company’s interests are opposite to yours when they fight unionization. I think that what you say here can be true, but I don't believe it is definitionally true. I have a vote in the US elections every year. In my entire adult life, I haven't ever felt like the federal government represents me. Most of the time the US federal government acts against my interests while pursuing the interests of some other segment of the population whose vote matters more to them. This suggests that having a vote in an organization does not make my interests by definition aligned with that of the governing body that the majority elects. A union is much the same: it represents the interests of the majority of its members. Most unions will actually fail to represent some portion of their members well, because their obligations are to the majority and few organizations are completely homogeneous. This may be fine and right, but it also means that I can't just assume that my interests will align with the interests of the majority and therefore of the future union. Sometimes my interests may align better with those of the company, and the rational move for me in the event of unionization is to consider that possibility.
    - just-ok 2y ago
      I agree with many of your points but not your parallel, entirely: > I haven't ever felt like the federal government represents me. Most of the time the US federal government acts against my interests while pursuing the interests of some other segment Imo, the only thing a rational participant in a democratic system should do is either (a) voting for a candidate that represents all of your make-or-breaks or (b) abstaining. I think if more people abstained (which I feel most people “wish” they could [I quote that because they absolutely could]), we’d see a little more change or diversity in opinion. Yet people feel shoehorned into a side because for the better part of a decade “side = !other side” (in the US, anyway) which perpetuates the notion that you don’t have to offer anything new and hurts the possibility of real change. Let the abstaining groups make their voice heard by the very act of abstaining.
- squigz 2y ago
  > This isn't entirely logical. Companies also spend millions to fight off patent trolls, but that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that you should team up with the trolls or that patent law doesn't need to be reformed after all. Something can be bad for you and bad for the company, so evidence of harm to the company is not sufficient to prove benefit to you. The difference is that companies don't often claim patent trolls are good and then turn around and fight them.
astrange 2y ago
> The fact that companies tell you that you don't need a union and they'll spend millions to union-bust or to avoid union certification should tell you everything you need to know: vote "yes" to the union if it comes up in your workplace and join. This is more like oppositional defiant disorder than politics; it's true that your interests are not fully aligned with your employer, but that doesn't mean you should do everything that they say not to do. A better answer is that the USA has some of the oldest and therefore most antiquated union laws. Other countries have sectoral bargaining systems, which are better precisely because individual employers are less motivated to oppose joining them. (Because with per-corporation unions, your employees joining makes you less competitive. But with sectoral systems it doesn't because your competitors all have to join too.)
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Because with per-corporation unions, your employees joining makes you less competitive. But with sectoral systems it doesn't because your competitors all have to join too. Doesn't this have the same problem, but now for your whole country? That industry in your country becomes less competitive against the same industry in another country.
  - emseetech 2y ago
    Many of the more productive countries that have sectoral unions end up competing on quality over price. Although that may have more to do with their economies being more advanced. A German worker simply could not survive on Indonesian wages, regardless of unionization.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Competitiveness is about more than just price. One of the best ways for first world countries to compete is through automation. Now you need higher skilled workers, because they're building and maintaining manufacturing equipment instead of sewing textiles by hand in a sweatshop, but you also need fewer of them and then they can each be paid more without compromising competitiveness. But you're still back to the original problem, because you're not just competing with Indonesia, you're also competing with other industrialized countries that have skilled workers but may not have unions. And you'll have to pay the market wage in those countries, which will certainly be higher than the median wage in Indonesia, but having a union that e.g. prevents bad workers from being discharged would still put your industry at a disadvantage.
guywithahat 2y ago
I can't find where that article is getting $90 an hour, I'm seeing 28 an hour starting, with 42 an hour as a max in 2028 (which isn't to say anything about the people in probation; we shouldn't forget people sometimes have to work for years to earn their way into a union). This would suggest the salary is lower than at Tesla (at least according to Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-labor-deal-with-uaw-clinches-ratification-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-la... From the studies I've seen, factory unions pay the most at formation, and after 5 years they fall to 1-2% above comparable factories in regards to total compensation. This makes sense, as union contracts are usually negotiated against industry averages, and no offense to joe schmo from aluminum castings but the Harvard MBA in charge of negotiating for the company is usually a better negotiator.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Just compare earnings by workers at the Big 3 who are represented by the UAW and Tesla workers who are non-unionized On the other hand, Tesla isn't building new North American factories in Mexico.
- coin 2y ago
  Yup, fewer overpaid jobs for those lucky enough to hold them.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  This isn’t just Tesla. Mercedes and one other carmaker have non-union plants in the US south. And speaking of opening plants: the UAW got one of the big 3 to stop their planned closure of one of their plants.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > the UAW got one of the big 3 to stop their planned closure of one of their plants. Then they have excess capacity, which is generally not great for the union: Now if the union goes on strike the company just increases utilization at facilities in another country and actually saves money. It also raises the company's costs in general, and so raises prices, and so lowers sales, and soon you're looking at more plant closures.
    - nielsbot 2y ago
      Auto companies will already move production to cheaper places. Not unionizing will not stop that. This is really about companies sharing more of their profits with their workers which is a good thing.
randomdata 2y ago
> Just compare earnings by workers at the Big 3 who are represented by the UAW and Tesla workers who are non-unionized [1]. What are we to compare, exactly? How the "old guard" auto companies have better cash cows than the new guy trying to get off the ground and use that to pay more to attract the best talent? Just like how and why Microsoft and Google pay way more than DuckDuckGo? > The company is not your friend. A union is a company. First we find encouragement to vote "yes" to see the company form, but then a warning that it will not be your friend... No wonder the typical American is so afraid of labor unions.

by jmyeet 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

> The fact that companies tell you that you don't need a union and they'll spend millions to union-bust or to avoid union certification should tell you everything you need to know: vote "yes" to the union if it comes up in your workplace and join. This isn't entirely logical. Companies also spend millions to fight off patent trolls, but that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that you should team up with the trolls or that patent law doesn't need to be reformed after all. Something can be bad for you and bad for the company, so evidence of harm to the company is not sufficient to prove benefit to you. Personally (speaking as a software engineer), if unionization is ever raised my plan is to look into all the details of the plan and weigh my options. I'm disinclined to trust any claim that something is always good or always bad, so I take the pro-union propaganda with the same salt as the anti-.

nielsbot 2y ago
All your analogy says is there are 2 sides to every fight. in the co-vs-union case, one of those sides is the company’s employees (you). That means the company’s interests are opposite to yours when they fight unionization. You might be skeptical of the union side, but the company is doing whatever will let them pay you less and/or exert more undemocratic control over you.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > will let them pay you less and/or exert more undemocratic control over you. the latter isn't necessarily bad for the worker, e.g. if a tech union tries to force divestment from Israel if more money for workers is involved, sure, I'm with you. but I kind of doubt it. If the (tech) union spends more effort pushing political things unrelated to money, best of luck to them. for unions outside of tech, this seems like less of an issue
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    In America, it is illegal for a union to bargain for things like not doing business with Israel. The union can put out statements about how they don't support trade with Israel, etc. and hope that management takes the feelings of its employee union seriously, but how often do you think that happens?
    - tadfisher 2y ago
      The law prevent businesses from boycotting Israel, they don't say anything about divestment.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > All your analogy says is there are 2 sides to every fight. in the co-vs-union case, one of those sides is the company’s employees (you). That means the company’s interests are opposite to yours when they fight unionization. I think that what you say here can be true, but I don't believe it is definitionally true. I have a vote in the US elections every year. In my entire adult life, I haven't ever felt like the federal government represents me. Most of the time the US federal government acts against my interests while pursuing the interests of some other segment of the population whose vote matters more to them. This suggests that having a vote in an organization does not make my interests by definition aligned with that of the governing body that the majority elects. A union is much the same: it represents the interests of the majority of its members. Most unions will actually fail to represent some portion of their members well, because their obligations are to the majority and few organizations are completely homogeneous. This may be fine and right, but it also means that I can't just assume that my interests will align with the interests of the majority and therefore of the future union. Sometimes my interests may align better with those of the company, and the rational move for me in the event of unionization is to consider that possibility.
  - just-ok 2y ago
    I agree with many of your points but not your parallel, entirely: > I haven't ever felt like the federal government represents me. Most of the time the US federal government acts against my interests while pursuing the interests of some other segment Imo, the only thing a rational participant in a democratic system should do is either (a) voting for a candidate that represents all of your make-or-breaks or (b) abstaining. I think if more people abstained (which I feel most people “wish” they could [I quote that because they absolutely could]), we’d see a little more change or diversity in opinion. Yet people feel shoehorned into a side because for the better part of a decade “side = !other side” (in the US, anyway) which perpetuates the notion that you don’t have to offer anything new and hurts the possibility of real change. Let the abstaining groups make their voice heard by the very act of abstaining.
squigz 2y ago
> This isn't entirely logical. Companies also spend millions to fight off patent trolls, but that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that you should team up with the trolls or that patent law doesn't need to be reformed after all. Something can be bad for you and bad for the company, so evidence of harm to the company is not sufficient to prove benefit to you. The difference is that companies don't often claim patent trolls are good and then turn around and fight them.

astrange 2y ago

> The fact that companies tell you that you don't need a union and they'll spend millions to union-bust or to avoid union certification should tell you everything you need to know: vote "yes" to the union if it comes up in your workplace and join. This is more like oppositional defiant disorder than politics; it's true that your interests are not fully aligned with your employer, but that doesn't mean you should do everything that they say not to do. A better answer is that the USA has some of the oldest and therefore most antiquated union laws. Other countries have sectoral bargaining systems, which are better precisely because individual employers are less motivated to oppose joining them. (Because with per-corporation unions, your employees joining makes you less competitive. But with sectoral systems it doesn't because your competitors all have to join too.)

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Because with per-corporation unions, your employees joining makes you less competitive. But with sectoral systems it doesn't because your competitors all have to join too. Doesn't this have the same problem, but now for your whole country? That industry in your country becomes less competitive against the same industry in another country.
- emseetech 2y ago
  Many of the more productive countries that have sectoral unions end up competing on quality over price. Although that may have more to do with their economies being more advanced. A German worker simply could not survive on Indonesian wages, regardless of unionization.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Competitiveness is about more than just price. One of the best ways for first world countries to compete is through automation. Now you need higher skilled workers, because they're building and maintaining manufacturing equipment instead of sewing textiles by hand in a sweatshop, but you also need fewer of them and then they can each be paid more without compromising competitiveness. But you're still back to the original problem, because you're not just competing with Indonesia, you're also competing with other industrialized countries that have skilled workers but may not have unions. And you'll have to pay the market wage in those countries, which will certainly be higher than the median wage in Indonesia, but having a union that e.g. prevents bad workers from being discharged would still put your industry at a disadvantage.

guywithahat 2y ago

I can't find where that article is getting $90 an hour, I'm seeing 28 an hour starting, with 42 an hour as a max in 2028 (which isn't to say anything about the people in probation; we shouldn't forget people sometimes have to work for years to earn their way into a union). This would suggest the salary is lower than at Tesla (at least according to Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-labor-deal-with-uaw-clinches-ratification-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-la... From the studies I've seen, factory unions pay the most at formation, and after 5 years they fall to 1-2% above comparable factories in regards to total compensation. This makes sense, as union contracts are usually negotiated against industry averages, and no offense to joe schmo from aluminum castings but the Harvard MBA in charge of negotiating for the company is usually a better negotiator.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Just compare earnings by workers at the Big 3 who are represented by the UAW and Tesla workers who are non-unionized On the other hand, Tesla isn't building new North American factories in Mexico.

coin 2y ago
Yup, fewer overpaid jobs for those lucky enough to hold them.
nielsbot 2y ago
This isn’t just Tesla. Mercedes and one other carmaker have non-union plants in the US south. And speaking of opening plants: the UAW got one of the big 3 to stop their planned closure of one of their plants.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > the UAW got one of the big 3 to stop their planned closure of one of their plants. Then they have excess capacity, which is generally not great for the union: Now if the union goes on strike the company just increases utilization at facilities in another country and actually saves money. It also raises the company's costs in general, and so raises prices, and so lowers sales, and soon you're looking at more plant closures.
  - nielsbot 2y ago
    Auto companies will already move production to cheaper places. Not unionizing will not stop that. This is really about companies sharing more of their profits with their workers which is a good thing.

randomdata 2y ago

> Just compare earnings by workers at the Big 3 who are represented by the UAW and Tesla workers who are non-unionized [1]. What are we to compare, exactly? How the "old guard" auto companies have better cash cows than the new guy trying to get off the ground and use that to pay more to attract the best talent? Just like how and why Microsoft and Google pay way more than DuckDuckGo? > The company is not your friend. A union is a company. First we find encouragement to vote "yes" to see the company form, but then a warning that it will not be your friend... No wonder the typical American is so afraid of labor unions.