8 ms·

I had a summer job as a dishwasher, which paid minimum wage. I was required to join the union, so after union dues, I was paid less than the minimum wage! Being

I had a summer job as a dishwasher, which paid minimum wage. I was required to join the union, so after union dues, I was paid less than the minimum wage! Being a union member provided no benefits whatsoever for temporary employees such as myself. This reminds me, the artist Gregory Blackstock retired with a union pension at 55 after 25 years' service as a dishwasher[0]. His art provided another source of income, but apparently he was swindled out of his estate. [0] https://www.historylink.org/File/22894 https://www.historylink.org/File/22894

brnt 2y ago
> Being a union member provided no benefits whatsoever for temporary employees In my union we very much care. What we do now is advocate for a reduction I the number of outsourced positions, and hire directly, so wage and conditions are improved. It's true unions optimise for certain things too (they also have limited sway and time), as I experienced as an expat. Especially when you know it's temporary, it's unlikely you'll ever see a personal benefit. OTOH, a union just managed to negotiate 10+% higher wages in my first year in current job, unbeknownst to me, so that's nice.
bko 2y ago
I think that the give-away that the union wasn't beneficial is that you were forced to join. If there is value add to parties, it would have to be voluntary. For instance, in financial industry, there is a certified financial analyst (CFA) designation that some choose to get. Employers normally pay those with a CFA higher wages and people sign up to get this certification and pay dues, all without anyone being forced. Mandatory unions seem bizarre to me, essentially just rent seeking.
- viccis 2y ago
  All effective unions are mandatory. They represent the interests of the mass of workers there, and they wield that collective power against two groups who would be happy to take food out of their mouths if they could get away with it: their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action. It seems like you don't really understand the meaning of "rent seeking". For something to be rent seeking, it must not provide any additional value. Unions do generally provide value, and in fact one of those values is a protection against actual "rent seeking" from employers, such as pay and benefit cuts (one of the easiest ways to earn more money with no extra value produced).
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action. When this becomes the norm, the union stops working for the workers and work only for itself, its usefulness is gone and can be disbanded.
    - viccis 2y ago
      It has always been the norm. The only difference is that the way it used to work is that if you tried to undercut them by skipping out on fees or undercutting their members' salaries, then a couple guys had a sock party with you in the parking lot. Nowadays we have a lot of political machinery around organized labor to replace physical application of power with organizational application of power. Every now and then the union does indeed stop working for them, which is when things like wildcat strikes occur.
  - Twirrim 2y ago
    >All effective unions are mandatory. That's a very US centric view. Unions are ample powerful in other countries without requiring mandatory membership. Previous places I've worked in Europe it's not unusual to have multiple unions represented in a company, and even collaborating together on various negotiations. It wasn't unusual for employees to change unions based on what the union was or wasn't doing for them as a member. Monopolies are absolutely awful, and that applies to unions too. >So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action. That's a really bizarre quirk of US mindset. So what if someone else gets the benefits of a better working conditions? Great for them, that's a fellow human being who's life now doesn't suck quite so much. That should be celebrated. If better working conditions is the only value the union provides you, your union sucks. I've joined unions in the past because of the access to all the other stuff that they can provide, like free legal support, representation in disciplinary situations etc, just as much as working conditions.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Is joining a union in your country mandatory? (or can be made mandatory?). I am not talking about peer pressure but legal requirements. This sounds quite crazy. What if there are 5 unions like we have in France?
- Scubabear68 2y ago
  Not at the Country level, but unions have been able to make it mandatory in certain industries and companies. It is how they hold their power. If it was optional, they would whither away over time.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    > If it was optional, they would whither away over time. In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected. If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away. Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some places like positions in the administration, the famous fonctionnaires where everybody is on the street when the post office is required to be open outside the times "10:30 to 12:30, except on Mondays", for which their ancestors fought :)) We have a love-hate relationship with unions (which of the love or hate depends on whether you need to take a train and you forgot that there are only 126 days in the year when they are not on strike :))
    - akira2501 2y ago
      Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.
      - bumby 2y ago
        >It's stepping backwards for short term comfort. Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.
viccis 2y ago
You joined a union workforce as a temporary employee and were shocked to find that you didn't benefit? Who do you think the union is there to benefit? It is there to protect the people working there for their living wage, and one of the biggest threats to that is replacing them with younger workers more willing to be exploited. A good union is acting in their interests, not yours, so it sounds like it was working as intended! If you had stayed there and worked full time, you would have been in a position to benefit from their negotiations around hours, benefits, and wages.
- returningfory2 2y ago
  I think you misunderstood the parent: they were paying into the union.
  - viccis 2y ago
    No, I understand that. Union dues are not a transaction any more than taxes or insurance premiums. Part time or temporary employees will always be deprioritized under people who have built lives and families working for that company and continue to do so.

brnt 2y ago

> Being a union member provided no benefits whatsoever for temporary employees In my union we very much care. What we do now is advocate for a reduction I the number of outsourced positions, and hire directly, so wage and conditions are improved. It's true unions optimise for certain things too (they also have limited sway and time), as I experienced as an expat. Especially when you know it's temporary, it's unlikely you'll ever see a personal benefit. OTOH, a union just managed to negotiate 10+% higher wages in my first year in current job, unbeknownst to me, so that's nice.

bko 2y ago

I think that the give-away that the union wasn't beneficial is that you were forced to join. If there is value add to parties, it would have to be voluntary. For instance, in financial industry, there is a certified financial analyst (CFA) designation that some choose to get. Employers normally pay those with a CFA higher wages and people sign up to get this certification and pay dues, all without anyone being forced. Mandatory unions seem bizarre to me, essentially just rent seeking.

viccis 2y ago
All effective unions are mandatory. They represent the interests of the mass of workers there, and they wield that collective power against two groups who would be happy to take food out of their mouths if they could get away with it: their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action. It seems like you don't really understand the meaning of "rent seeking". For something to be rent seeking, it must not provide any additional value. Unions do generally provide value, and in fact one of those values is a protection against actual "rent seeking" from employers, such as pay and benefit cuts (one of the easiest ways to earn more money with no extra value produced).
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action. When this becomes the norm, the union stops working for the workers and work only for itself, its usefulness is gone and can be disbanded.
  - viccis 2y ago
    It has always been the norm. The only difference is that the way it used to work is that if you tried to undercut them by skipping out on fees or undercutting their members' salaries, then a couple guys had a sock party with you in the parking lot. Nowadays we have a lot of political machinery around organized labor to replace physical application of power with organizational application of power. Every now and then the union does indeed stop working for them, which is when things like wildcat strikes occur.
- Twirrim 2y ago
  >All effective unions are mandatory. That's a very US centric view. Unions are ample powerful in other countries without requiring mandatory membership. Previous places I've worked in Europe it's not unusual to have multiple unions represented in a company, and even collaborating together on various negotiations. It wasn't unusual for employees to change unions based on what the union was or wasn't doing for them as a member. Monopolies are absolutely awful, and that applies to unions too. >So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a union has fought for without contributing to their continued push for better conditions, you are a parasite and their enemy, and they are justified in locking you out of that job via collective action. That's a really bizarre quirk of US mindset. So what if someone else gets the benefits of a better working conditions? Great for them, that's a fellow human being who's life now doesn't suck quite so much. That should be celebrated. If better working conditions is the only value the union provides you, your union sucks. I've joined unions in the past because of the access to all the other stuff that they can provide, like free legal support, representation in disciplinary situations etc, just as much as working conditions.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

Is joining a union in your country mandatory? (or can be made mandatory?). I am not talking about peer pressure but legal requirements. This sounds quite crazy. What if there are 5 unions like we have in France?

Scubabear68 2y ago
Not at the Country level, but unions have been able to make it mandatory in certain industries and companies. It is how they hold their power. If it was optional, they would whither away over time.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  > If it was optional, they would whither away over time. In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected. If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away. Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some places like positions in the administration, the famous fonctionnaires where everybody is on the street when the post office is required to be open outside the times "10:30 to 12:30, except on Mondays", for which their ancestors fought :)) We have a love-hate relationship with unions (which of the love or hate depends on whether you need to take a train and you forgot that there are only 126 days in the year when they are not on strike :))
  - akira2501 2y ago
    Unions encode the rather insane idea that if you're stuck negotiating against a monopoly then you should become a labor monopoly yourself. It's stepping backwards for short term comfort.
    - bumby 2y ago
      >It's stepping backwards for short term comfort. Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.

viccis 2y ago

You joined a union workforce as a temporary employee and were shocked to find that you didn't benefit? Who do you think the union is there to benefit? It is there to protect the people working there for their living wage, and one of the biggest threats to that is replacing them with younger workers more willing to be exploited. A good union is acting in their interests, not yours, so it sounds like it was working as intended! If you had stayed there and worked full time, you would have been in a position to benefit from their negotiations around hours, benefits, and wages.

returningfory2 2y ago
I think you misunderstood the parent: they were paying into the union.
- viccis 2y ago
  No, I understand that. Union dues are not a transaction any more than taxes or insurance premiums. Part time or temporary employees will always be deprioritized under people who have built lives and families working for that company and continue to do so.