12 ms·

> 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 quest

> 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.
      - consteval 2y ago
        > So, why don't the poor unionize and use their power to capture wealth they're lacking? They... do. You just described a union and why a union would be good for poor workers. > They don't have the resources Right... which is why they unionize, to pool resources. > Unions are a rich man's sport You've said this, and never explained how. Rich man are, presumably, business owners. Not laborers. Why, and how, would a union be beneficial for business owners? Wouldn't it be bad for them?
awesomeMilou 2y ago
> most likely they can outlast poor you with ease. Once you give up, your power is gone. Maybe don't put forward arguments that hinge on denial of reality? The railway strikes in Germany from beginning of this year prove that, no, the bourgeoisie cannot just sit around and wait and/or rehire their entire staff. The 2023 Hollywood labor disputes show that "the poor" can indeed last longer than "the rich".
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Maybe don't put forward arguments that hinge on denial of reality? Ironic. If I was able to meet reality, that would imply I have a full understanding of reality, at which point for what reason would there be to talk about it? That would be a pointless waste of time. > 2023 Hollywood labor disputes show that "the poor" can indeed last longer than "the rich". According to the internet, these "poor" you speak of are making average incomes into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These are, generally, very rich people. Perhaps you aren't aware of what poor is?
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Unions in Europe originated with the poor factory workers, miners etc. Sometimes going on strike would be tough — there'd be less to eat, if the union wasn't large enough to subsidise strikers with workers' income from elsewhere.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      Unions predate the labour movement. The Royal Society is oft considered the first formalized union, originating in the 17th century, with a focus on the progression of science and not employment woes. The early trade unions were not successful. I mean, they were successful in bringing about change, but they were not successful as power entities. They had to lean on government to exert the power. Unions are a rich man's sport. Of course, government itself is ultimately a union, although differing in how membership is recognized. A government of only poor people wouldn't go far either, though. Government equally needs riches to wield power.
baubino 2y ago
> 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? When union workers strike, they do so collectively, which means that the bargaining power is not that of a single individual but that of the collective workforce. Employers often can’t just wait out a strike because they lose tons of money when all its employees aren’t working. The union’s strength lies precisely in this collective bargaining power. Also, unions raise money to support striking workers and unions emerged initially in the jobs where workers were paid the least and exploited the most (see early 19th century textile workers in the U.S., for example). The decline of unions since then is a more complicated history but the reality is that unions most benefit the most exploited workers who would otherwise have no recourse as individuals. Collective support helps maintain workers throughout a strike.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Also, unions raise money to support striking workers You’re still thinking of the rich. The poor don’t have money to raise. If they did, they wouldn’t be poor.

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.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > So, why don't the poor unionize and use their power to capture wealth they're lacking? They... do. You just described a union and why a union would be good for poor workers. > They don't have the resources Right... which is why they unionize, to pool resources. > Unions are a rich man's sport You've said this, and never explained how. Rich man are, presumably, business owners. Not laborers. Why, and how, would a union be beneficial for business owners? Wouldn't it be bad for them?

awesomeMilou 2y ago

> most likely they can outlast poor you with ease. Once you give up, your power is gone. Maybe don't put forward arguments that hinge on denial of reality? The railway strikes in Germany from beginning of this year prove that, no, the bourgeoisie cannot just sit around and wait and/or rehire their entire staff. The 2023 Hollywood labor disputes show that "the poor" can indeed last longer than "the rich".

randomdata 2y ago
> Maybe don't put forward arguments that hinge on denial of reality? Ironic. If I was able to meet reality, that would imply I have a full understanding of reality, at which point for what reason would there be to talk about it? That would be a pointless waste of time. > 2023 Hollywood labor disputes show that "the poor" can indeed last longer than "the rich". According to the internet, these "poor" you speak of are making average incomes into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These are, generally, very rich people. Perhaps you aren't aware of what poor is?
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Unions in Europe originated with the poor factory workers, miners etc. Sometimes going on strike would be tough — there'd be less to eat, if the union wasn't large enough to subsidise strikers with workers' income from elsewhere.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Unions predate the labour movement. The Royal Society is oft considered the first formalized union, originating in the 17th century, with a focus on the progression of science and not employment woes. The early trade unions were not successful. I mean, they were successful in bringing about change, but they were not successful as power entities. They had to lean on government to exert the power. Unions are a rich man's sport. Of course, government itself is ultimately a union, although differing in how membership is recognized. A government of only poor people wouldn't go far either, though. Government equally needs riches to wield power.

baubino 2y ago

> 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? When union workers strike, they do so collectively, which means that the bargaining power is not that of a single individual but that of the collective workforce. Employers often can’t just wait out a strike because they lose tons of money when all its employees aren’t working. The union’s strength lies precisely in this collective bargaining power. Also, unions raise money to support striking workers and unions emerged initially in the jobs where workers were paid the least and exploited the most (see early 19th century textile workers in the U.S., for example). The decline of unions since then is a more complicated history but the reality is that unions most benefit the most exploited workers who would otherwise have no recourse as individuals. Collective support helps maintain workers throughout a strike.

randomdata 2y ago
> Also, unions raise money to support striking workers You’re still thinking of the rich. The poor don’t have money to raise. If they did, they wouldn’t be poor.