5 ms·

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. F

by 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.
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    > That's a very US centric view It is of course however it can be argued that the US is somewhat of a unique case here. To quote wikipedia (which itself is citing three other sources in this quote's case) > According to labor historians, the US has the most violent labor history of any industrialized nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St... So the US has a bit of a unique history here. A less than fun example of this is that the organized labor holiday "May Day" is celebrated in many countries notably excluding the US. This of course being despite the fact that the date was selected by the AFL (now AFL-CIO, one of the main union federations in the US) to memorialize the general strike in Chicago that ended in the Haymarket Massacre (May 1st 1886 - May 4th 1886).
    - CrazyStat 2y ago
      > A less than fun example of this is that the organized labor holiday "May Day" is celebrated in many countries notably excluding the US. Because the US already had Labor Day in September, which predates the May 1 celebration.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  When you're calling workers "parasites", you shouldn't be surprised if people dislike unions. In my experience the unions is just another layer of scammers stealing money from young workers after the employer and the government.
  - viccis 2y ago
    Organized labor does not exist to stoke the ego of people trying to harm their cause. They do much worse than call them "parasites", I promise lol. For example, ruining someone's career with a board complaint is extremely satisfying. >In my experience Really doubt this is significant, meh.
- bko 2y ago
  > their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees
  - TuringNYC 2y ago
    >> What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees Eventually situations like this bankrupt a company, sadly due to decisions made decades ago. Just because a company's hands are tied does not mean that current employees need to take sub-market wages. They can, if they are being compensated in some other way (unique experience, growth potential, etc) but normally people see the writing on the wall and walk away. Also, company management needs to negotiate contracts which are fair to all three parties -- owners, current union members, future employees who will bear the burden. It is a tough but important balancing act.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - closeparen 2y ago
    Unions exist to redistribute income. From capital to labor, and from workers with higher market wages to those with lower market wages. That management can't award an outsized pay package to a valuable employee without buying everyone else's assent is a feature - that's why people with left-leaning economic politics like them.
- achillesheels 2y ago
  The Teachers Unions of America add value? I mean this respectively: are you a Democrat shill? How on Earth can you generalize that? Look at the kids math literacy and obesity in CA. How is this bringing value to the team?
  - TheCowboy 2y ago
    > are you a Democrat shill? Surely we can be adults enough to discuss this without the partisan edge.
- dweinus 2y ago
  I'm not anti-union at all, but I do think there is a very common experience that sours people against them early in their career: that of a mandatory union that docks your already meager pay without any obvious benefits. It of course overlooks the things you enjoy as an employee that the union won and fights to retain (breaks, safety standards, etc). I think anyone who wants unions to succeed needs to think about solving that problem, because unions only succeed on collective action.

by bko 2y ago

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.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  > That's a very US centric view It is of course however it can be argued that the US is somewhat of a unique case here. To quote wikipedia (which itself is citing three other sources in this quote's case) > According to labor historians, the US has the most violent labor history of any industrialized nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St... So the US has a bit of a unique history here. A less than fun example of this is that the organized labor holiday "May Day" is celebrated in many countries notably excluding the US. This of course being despite the fact that the date was selected by the AFL (now AFL-CIO, one of the main union federations in the US) to memorialize the general strike in Chicago that ended in the Haymarket Massacre (May 1st 1886 - May 4th 1886).
  - CrazyStat 2y ago
    > A less than fun example of this is that the organized labor holiday "May Day" is celebrated in many countries notably excluding the US. Because the US already had Labor Day in September, which predates the May 1 celebration.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
carlosjobim 2y ago
When you're calling workers "parasites", you shouldn't be surprised if people dislike unions. In my experience the unions is just another layer of scammers stealing money from young workers after the employer and the government.
- viccis 2y ago
  Organized labor does not exist to stoke the ego of people trying to harm their cause. They do much worse than call them "parasites", I promise lol. For example, ruining someone's career with a board complaint is extremely satisfying. >In my experience Really doubt this is significant, meh.
bko 2y ago
> their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees
- TuringNYC 2y ago
  >> What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees Eventually situations like this bankrupt a company, sadly due to decisions made decades ago. Just because a company's hands are tied does not mean that current employees need to take sub-market wages. They can, if they are being compensated in some other way (unique experience, growth potential, etc) but normally people see the writing on the wall and walk away. Also, company management needs to negotiate contracts which are fair to all three parties -- owners, current union members, future employees who will bear the burden. It is a tough but important balancing act.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 2y ago
  Unions exist to redistribute income. From capital to labor, and from workers with higher market wages to those with lower market wages. That management can't award an outsized pay package to a valuable employee without buying everyone else's assent is a feature - that's why people with left-leaning economic politics like them.
achillesheels 2y ago
The Teachers Unions of America add value? I mean this respectively: are you a Democrat shill? How on Earth can you generalize that? Look at the kids math literacy and obesity in CA. How is this bringing value to the team?
- TheCowboy 2y ago
  > are you a Democrat shill? Surely we can be adults enough to discuss this without the partisan edge.
dweinus 2y ago
I'm not anti-union at all, but I do think there is a very common experience that sours people against them early in their career: that of a mandatory union that docks your already meager pay without any obvious benefits. It of course overlooks the things you enjoy as an employee that the union won and fights to retain (breaks, safety standards, etc). I think anyone who wants unions to succeed needs to think about solving that problem, because unions only succeed on collective action.