3 ms·
Most people in the united states think of unions as some kind of entrenched bureaucratic entity that's not capable of effecting change. Typically we say "the u
by __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Most people in the united states think of unions as some kind of entrenched bureaucratic entity that's not capable of effecting change. Typically we say "the union" as if there can only be one, and once it's corrupt, there's no recourse. Often our laws reflect this, striking as part of a "wildcat" union can be illegal. It leads to this feeling that you have to know the right people to unionize.
It's a problematic perspective. "The" union might be an impotent lost cause, but "A" union can appear suddenly, strike hard, and dissipate once the need for it has gone. This seems more like the latter.
- atoav 2y agoAs you correctly point out on a fundamental level unions are just workers of a particular skill organizing to address issues these workers want to see adressed, and by them bekng many they strengthen their bargaining position. Unions can devolve into dysfunctional bureaucratic entities, but so can literally everything else where people come together for a cause — so that is no argument against unions. Every employee is replaceable, banding together with others that might replace you instead of letting them play you like a fool is a power move.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI feel like focusing on "workers of a particular skill" is a bit too narrow. A strike could be like... > These people have disabled a critical part of your supply chain and they will restore it if you improve the working conditions for these other people. ...where both groups of people are part of the same union despite having very different jobs. If you can achieve solidarity across sectors, you can strike much more effectively than by merely refusing to work.