4 ms·

If you were living off that money maybe you wouldn't find it so decent. Maybe you'd want a union idk unless you have some non-financial reason not to that you h

If you were living off that money maybe you wouldn't find it so decent. Maybe you'd want a union idk unless you have some non-financial reason not to that you haven't mentioned here. I trust their perception of their needs more than I trust your perception of it.

Zpalmtree 2y ago
[flagged]
- guywithahat 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kennywinker 2y ago
    Globalization ate union and non-union jobs, so blaming unions for flint’s fall from grace… seems unfounded.
    - guywithahat 2y ago
      But the jobs didn’t disappear to Asia, the office jobs moved to Detroit and the factory jobs moved to other cities/states. Flint was the birthplace of the UAW, and it’s generally credited with driving all the jobs out. That said, blaming globalization for the loss of factory work feels intellectually lazy. Some things will always fall to the lowest bidder, but a lot of stuff is extremely complex and you wouldn’t send it overseas unless you felt like you had to (either because of unions, suppliers, local politics, or some other reason). The irony is most HN users advocate for unions, but never join one because the work is too boring or the pay is too low, as if those aren’t a direct result of the union.
  - paddim8 2y ago
    So why does it work so well in Nordic countries then? Unionisation is the norm here
    - Taikonerd 2y ago
      There are different models of union. IIUC, Nordic countries use sectoral bargaining: [0] Sectoral bargaining is when a union covers an entire sector of the economy, e.g. telecom, electrical, aviation. In sectoral bargaining, companies don't fight unions as hard. ("We'll have to pay our workers more, but all our competitors will too, so we won't be at a relative disadvantage.") [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining
- camdat 2y ago
  This meta-study says the exact opposite. Can you defend your position empirically? https://www.nber.org/digest/digestsep18/new-evidence-unions-raise-wages-less-skilled-workers https://www.nber.org/digest/digestsep18/new-evidence-unions-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - roenxi 2y ago
    1. I don't think that is a meta-study. It seems to be an attempt to build a dataset to track US union membership over long timeframes. 2. It notes that there is a correlation between union membership and inequality. Which is interesting but not that powerful - correlation is not causation. It might be that both trends are being driven by the financialisation of the US economy. 3. It finds that union households earn a premium over non-union households. Again, because of the nature of the study that doesn't tell us much about the impacts of unions. As an analogy, we might find that HN commentators earn more than non-HN commentators in the tech industry but that doesn't indicate that HN is pushing salaries up. Although in fairness I would suspect there probably is a causal element. But I still don't want to be in a unionised industry. I don't want a premium over other tech workers. I want to maximise the average tech worker salary and then be employed in tech. Those are very different objectives and require different strategies to achieve. Pro-union types tend to have a very short term view of the world and aren't about maximising long term returns. Strikes and collective bargaining don't move the needle in the right direction over the long term.
    - aesh2Xa1 2y ago
      You're right that this isn't a meta-study. It's a deep survey and references many similar studies, though. It certainly doesn't exist in a vacuum. "In this section, we explore in a more direct manner the relationship between unions and income inequality, joining an extensive empirical literature examining how unions shape the income distribution." You're right to point out that "correlation is not causation," but the study specifically addresses your concern and presents a strong argument for causation. It's not as if science can never demonstrate anything using correlation and statistical techniques, you know? https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/ "Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there.'" > It notes that there is a correlation between union membership and inequality Specifically, it notes a robust INVERSE correlation that: * Increased union membership correlates to decreased inequality * Decreased union membership correlates to increased inequality > Which is interesting but not that powerful - correlation is not causation The authors acknowledge the statistical nature of correlation, and they addressed it (they say so right in the abstract). They used the following techniques to establish a causal relationship between union density and income inequality. * distributional decompositions * time series regressions * state-year regressions * instrumental-variable strategy based on historical events like the 1935 legalization of unions and the World War II–era War Labor Board > It might be that both trends are being driven by the financialisation of the US economy. The authors find that policy changes which significantly reduced the cost of union organizing (e.g., the Wagner Act and the National War Labor Board during WWII) led to lasting increases in state-level union density and corresponding reductions in income inequality. These effects were specific to the periods when these policies were active and had no similar impact in other times, such as during the Korean War, which did not explicitly promote union organization. This is a cause very different from a wild guess at "financialisation of the US economy." Furthermore, the study highlights that unions were particularly effective in reducing inequality by increasing the wages of less-educated and nonwhite workers. During periods of high union density, the wage gap between union and nonunion workers was substantial, contributing significantly to overall income equality. > It finds that union households earn a premium over non-union households. Again, because of the nature of the study that doesn't tell us much about the impacts of unions. The study does more than just observe a premium; it provides historical and statistical context to argue that the premium is associated with union activities, such as collective bargaining. The consistent premium over many decades, despite changes in union density, suggests a link between union presence and wage levels. In short, no, neither union membership or inequality are evidenced as show "both caused by financialization of the economy." They the latter correlated to the former, and was tested for causation. The former's uptake can include economic considerations, but it also correlated directly to governance policy directly targeting labor law.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  This is like saying business owners hurt people by ignoring regulations, and governments decrease lifespan by killing their citizens. Or that internet commenters weaken society by telling lies. These things have all happened, but they aren't inherent qualities of those actors, and the fact that some actors have done those things doesn't mean the organizational category should be discarded.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  How do unions make shitty employees unfireable? From what I've seen, collective bargaining agreements usually mandate two things: 1. Documentation of 'just cause' for firing. Unlike standard at-will, you need a real reason to fire someone like poor performance. 2. You need to follow the specified disciplinary process. This is just a formalized, bureaucratic version of the process that any legitimate termination for performance is going to follow anyway, so I'm not sure how it's a huge change.
- awesomeMilou 2y ago
  Lack of unions decrease wages because there will always be someone willing to sell themselves for less.

Zpalmtree 2y ago

[flagged]

guywithahat 2y ago
[flagged]
- kennywinker 2y ago
  Globalization ate union and non-union jobs, so blaming unions for flint’s fall from grace… seems unfounded.
  - guywithahat 2y ago
    But the jobs didn’t disappear to Asia, the office jobs moved to Detroit and the factory jobs moved to other cities/states. Flint was the birthplace of the UAW, and it’s generally credited with driving all the jobs out. That said, blaming globalization for the loss of factory work feels intellectually lazy. Some things will always fall to the lowest bidder, but a lot of stuff is extremely complex and you wouldn’t send it overseas unless you felt like you had to (either because of unions, suppliers, local politics, or some other reason). The irony is most HN users advocate for unions, but never join one because the work is too boring or the pay is too low, as if those aren’t a direct result of the union.
- paddim8 2y ago
  So why does it work so well in Nordic countries then? Unionisation is the norm here
  - Taikonerd 2y ago
    There are different models of union. IIUC, Nordic countries use sectoral bargaining: [0] Sectoral bargaining is when a union covers an entire sector of the economy, e.g. telecom, electrical, aviation. In sectoral bargaining, companies don't fight unions as hard. ("We'll have to pay our workers more, but all our competitors will too, so we won't be at a relative disadvantage.") [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining
camdat 2y ago
This meta-study says the exact opposite. Can you defend your position empirically? https://www.nber.org/digest/digestsep18/new-evidence-unions-raise-wages-less-skilled-workers https://www.nber.org/digest/digestsep18/new-evidence-unions-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- roenxi 2y ago
  1. I don't think that is a meta-study. It seems to be an attempt to build a dataset to track US union membership over long timeframes. 2. It notes that there is a correlation between union membership and inequality. Which is interesting but not that powerful - correlation is not causation. It might be that both trends are being driven by the financialisation of the US economy. 3. It finds that union households earn a premium over non-union households. Again, because of the nature of the study that doesn't tell us much about the impacts of unions. As an analogy, we might find that HN commentators earn more than non-HN commentators in the tech industry but that doesn't indicate that HN is pushing salaries up. Although in fairness I would suspect there probably is a causal element. But I still don't want to be in a unionised industry. I don't want a premium over other tech workers. I want to maximise the average tech worker salary and then be employed in tech. Those are very different objectives and require different strategies to achieve. Pro-union types tend to have a very short term view of the world and aren't about maximising long term returns. Strikes and collective bargaining don't move the needle in the right direction over the long term.
  - aesh2Xa1 2y ago
    You're right that this isn't a meta-study. It's a deep survey and references many similar studies, though. It certainly doesn't exist in a vacuum. "In this section, we explore in a more direct manner the relationship between unions and income inequality, joining an extensive empirical literature examining how unions shape the income distribution." You're right to point out that "correlation is not causation," but the study specifically addresses your concern and presents a strong argument for causation. It's not as if science can never demonstrate anything using correlation and statistical techniques, you know? https://xkcd.com/552/ https://xkcd.com/552/ "Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there.'" > It notes that there is a correlation between union membership and inequality Specifically, it notes a robust INVERSE correlation that: * Increased union membership correlates to decreased inequality * Decreased union membership correlates to increased inequality > Which is interesting but not that powerful - correlation is not causation The authors acknowledge the statistical nature of correlation, and they addressed it (they say so right in the abstract). They used the following techniques to establish a causal relationship between union density and income inequality. * distributional decompositions * time series regressions * state-year regressions * instrumental-variable strategy based on historical events like the 1935 legalization of unions and the World War II–era War Labor Board > It might be that both trends are being driven by the financialisation of the US economy. The authors find that policy changes which significantly reduced the cost of union organizing (e.g., the Wagner Act and the National War Labor Board during WWII) led to lasting increases in state-level union density and corresponding reductions in income inequality. These effects were specific to the periods when these policies were active and had no similar impact in other times, such as during the Korean War, which did not explicitly promote union organization. This is a cause very different from a wild guess at "financialisation of the US economy." Furthermore, the study highlights that unions were particularly effective in reducing inequality by increasing the wages of less-educated and nonwhite workers. During periods of high union density, the wage gap between union and nonunion workers was substantial, contributing significantly to overall income equality. > It finds that union households earn a premium over non-union households. Again, because of the nature of the study that doesn't tell us much about the impacts of unions. The study does more than just observe a premium; it provides historical and statistical context to argue that the premium is associated with union activities, such as collective bargaining. The consistent premium over many decades, despite changes in union density, suggests a link between union presence and wage levels. In short, no, neither union membership or inequality are evidenced as show "both caused by financialization of the economy." They the latter correlated to the former, and was tested for causation. The former's uptake can include economic considerations, but it also correlated directly to governance policy directly targeting labor law.
margalabargala 2y ago
This is like saying business owners hurt people by ignoring regulations, and governments decrease lifespan by killing their citizens. Or that internet commenters weaken society by telling lies. These things have all happened, but they aren't inherent qualities of those actors, and the fact that some actors have done those things doesn't mean the organizational category should be discarded.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
How do unions make shitty employees unfireable? From what I've seen, collective bargaining agreements usually mandate two things: 1. Documentation of 'just cause' for firing. Unlike standard at-will, you need a real reason to fire someone like poor performance. 2. You need to follow the specified disciplinary process. This is just a formalized, bureaucratic version of the process that any legitimate termination for performance is going to follow anyway, so I'm not sure how it's a huge change.
awesomeMilou 2y ago
Lack of unions decrease wages because there will always be someone willing to sell themselves for less.