4 ms·

I expect what is significant is that this site attracts an audience on the wealthy end of the spectrum. Unions aren't just for workers. There are also unions fo

I expect what is significant is that this site attracts an audience on the wealthy end of the spectrum. Unions aren't just for workers. There are also unions for business owners (e.g. farmer unions). Freedom of association is for everyone. But unions are ultimately a rich man's sport. They require funding and if they need to exert power they can only do so by withholding service. The poor are generally not in a position to act on either, especially the withholding of service. Unions embolden the rich, but can completely cripple the poor. So you find much less support when the money isn't there.

geraltofrivia 2y ago
I am sure your opinion is formed based on some experiences you have had in life. I would like to disagree. Unions are a tool for the poor, the people who don’t have a lot of rights, and protects them from the whim of the rich. If you are working a minimum wage job, and you are being made to work excessive hours, what is your recourse? What is your bargaining power? Okay, one answer may be to quit and try somewhere else since there isn’t anything to lose here. Well, I can tell you a very real scenario. My mother was working as a bank clerk in India. Has been her whole life. In the same bank (branches changed but she never changed the bank). When she was 50, there was a fraud. There was a transaction from a local businessman to someone, worth 3x her annual salary. She approved the txn. Once discovered, the businessman took the bank to court who in turn put the blame on my mom of will full ignorance. Businessman offered to settle out of court but we couldnt afford it, of course. At this point, the union came to mum’s help. They pressured upper management to get their house in order, not shift the blame to the tellers, and do not even think about firing her.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > If you are working a minimum wage job, and you are being made to work excessive hours, what is your recourse? What is your bargaining power? That's the question. What is your bargaining power? All you have is your ability to stop working. Which, indeed, can exert power –– But if you are poor how long can you really go without work before you starve to death? The rich can afford to sit around and wait until the over side caves. But unless you working excessive hours is the only thing keeping a business afloat (in which case, what do you stand to gain?), most likely they can outlast poor you with ease. Once you give up, your power is gone. If you can't go without work for weeks, months, maybe even years, the business will quickly recognize your idle threat is just that. It is not just coincidence that unions are rare in professions where there isn't a whole lot of money floating around. > Well, I can tell you a very real scenario. This doesn't appear to speak to bargaining power, just communication. No power was needed to be exerted. If it came to a point where power needed to be exerted, how long would your mother have actually lasted? Assuming she could have lasted long enough, perhaps she wasn't as poor as you let on?
  - sqeaky 2y ago
    Consider the airline union strikes a while back. They leveraged the threat of striking in fits and spurts. They would strike for a day here or a hour there. Extremely disruptive to the business. The airlines had upper managers covering for flight attendants and scabs on contract but the stress was too much after a while. Because it was unpredictable and there are real costs to training flight staff the airlines could just replace everyone or have a whole fleet of spare staff on standby. Strikes don't need to be and shouldn't be simple affairs, they can and should be nuanced and creative because the capitalists certainly will try to be clever and creative at putting people back into abusive working conditions when it suits them. Unions are about organization. Because organization creates options. Options are power. Money is one way to get options and therefore power, but not the only way.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > They would strike for a day here or a hour there. Still a luxury of the rich, of course. The poor can't afford to lose a day, or even an hour.
      - consteval 2y ago
        ... but its not, because the union makes this easier than doing it yourself. Okay, just do some simple reasoning. Who has more bargaining power? An individual or a union? A union, of course. Therefore, who can end a strike sooner? A union, of course. Therefore, who can get paid sooner? Unionized workers, of course. If you're POOR and in a position to REQUIRE CHANGE, a union will be necessarily better for you. I don't even understand how this can be up for debate because it seems so painfully obvious.
        randomdata 2y ago
        > Who has more bargaining power? An individual or a union? A union, of course. Depends. Whomever has the most money. Generally, a group of moderately wealthy people will have more combined money than a single very wealthy person, but statistical likelihood does not provide a guarantee. We can find all kinds of examples in history where exceptionally wealthy individuals have completely dominated over unions. And even when unions, especially labour unions, do show some amount of strength, they often have to go crying to a rich government for additional power when they don't have enough money of their own. But if the union members are poor (like, actually poor, not pretend poor like we keep seeing in other comments)... > If you're POOR and in a position to REQUIRE CHANGE, a union will be necessarily better for you. Require is an interesting word. What is actually "required"? From what I gather "require" merely means something akin to "would be really nice to have". In that vein, a poor person attaining wealth would be really nice to have. Few would argue with that. So, why don't the poor unionize and use their power to the capture wealth they are so sorrily lacking? The answer is simple: They don't have the resources to actually do it. Unions are a rich man's sport.

geraltofrivia 2y ago

I am sure your opinion is formed based on some experiences you have had in life. I would like to disagree. Unions are a tool for the poor, the people who don’t have a lot of rights, and protects them from the whim of the rich. If you are working a minimum wage job, and you are being made to work excessive hours, what is your recourse? What is your bargaining power? Okay, one answer may be to quit and try somewhere else since there isn’t anything to lose here. Well, I can tell you a very real scenario. My mother was working as a bank clerk in India. Has been her whole life. In the same bank (branches changed but she never changed the bank). When she was 50, there was a fraud. There was a transaction from a local businessman to someone, worth 3x her annual salary. She approved the txn. Once discovered, the businessman took the bank to court who in turn put the blame on my mom of will full ignorance. Businessman offered to settle out of court but we couldnt afford it, of course. At this point, the union came to mum’s help. They pressured upper management to get their house in order, not shift the blame to the tellers, and do not even think about firing her.

randomdata 2y ago
> If you are working a minimum wage job, and you are being made to work excessive hours, what is your recourse? What is your bargaining power? That's the question. What is your bargaining power? All you have is your ability to stop working. Which, indeed, can exert power –– But if you are poor how long can you really go without work before you starve to death? The rich can afford to sit around and wait until the over side caves. But unless you working excessive hours is the only thing keeping a business afloat (in which case, what do you stand to gain?), most likely they can outlast poor you with ease. Once you give up, your power is gone. If you can't go without work for weeks, months, maybe even years, the business will quickly recognize your idle threat is just that. It is not just coincidence that unions are rare in professions where there isn't a whole lot of money floating around. > Well, I can tell you a very real scenario. This doesn't appear to speak to bargaining power, just communication. No power was needed to be exerted. If it came to a point where power needed to be exerted, how long would your mother have actually lasted? Assuming she could have lasted long enough, perhaps she wasn't as poor as you let on?
- sqeaky 2y ago
  Consider the airline union strikes a while back. They leveraged the threat of striking in fits and spurts. They would strike for a day here or a hour there. Extremely disruptive to the business. The airlines had upper managers covering for flight attendants and scabs on contract but the stress was too much after a while. Because it was unpredictable and there are real costs to training flight staff the airlines could just replace everyone or have a whole fleet of spare staff on standby. Strikes don't need to be and shouldn't be simple affairs, they can and should be nuanced and creative because the capitalists certainly will try to be clever and creative at putting people back into abusive working conditions when it suits them. Unions are about organization. Because organization creates options. Options are power. Money is one way to get options and therefore power, but not the only way.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > They would strike for a day here or a hour there. Still a luxury of the rich, of course. The poor can't afford to lose a day, or even an hour.
    - consteval 2y ago
      ... but its not, because the union makes this easier than doing it yourself. Okay, just do some simple reasoning. Who has more bargaining power? An individual or a union? A union, of course. Therefore, who can end a strike sooner? A union, of course. Therefore, who can get paid sooner? Unionized workers, of course. If you're POOR and in a position to REQUIRE CHANGE, a union will be necessarily better for you. I don't even understand how this can be up for debate because it seems so painfully obvious.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > Who has more bargaining power? An individual or a union? A union, of course. Depends. Whomever has the most money. Generally, a group of moderately wealthy people will have more combined money than a single very wealthy person, but statistical likelihood does not provide a guarantee. We can find all kinds of examples in history where exceptionally wealthy individuals have completely dominated over unions. And even when unions, especially labour unions, do show some amount of strength, they often have to go crying to a rich government for additional power when they don't have enough money of their own. But if the union members are poor (like, actually poor, not pretend poor like we keep seeing in other comments)... > If you're POOR and in a position to REQUIRE CHANGE, a union will be necessarily better for you. Require is an interesting word. What is actually "required"? From what I gather "require" merely means something akin to "would be really nice to have". In that vein, a poor person attaining wealth would be really nice to have. Few would argue with that. So, why don't the poor unionize and use their power to the capture wealth they are so sorrily lacking? The answer is simple: They don't have the resources to actually do it. Unions are a rich man's sport.