3 ms·

Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against

by phil21 5mo ago

Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all. But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. Not my thing. At all. One should be able to be rewarded for hard work and productivity when you are expending more effort than the guy clocking in and doing everything possible to avoid it. I’ve often thought you solve this via old fashioned guild based systems. The guild trains and provides labor while guaranteeing skills, quality, and honesty. They vet their members and cull the losers - a poor performing member should be seen as a liability for the rest of the pool of labor and very quickly corrected or removed from the guild. That way employers know that even if they are paying more than they would like, at least the labor being supplied is going to be top tier and the job will done done to a high standard and on time. Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. There are some trades unions in local chapter formats that work somewhat like this today. I’d just like to see more of it and more formalized with local competition between different union groups.

aliasxneo 5mo ago
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience. > Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.
- Muromec 5mo ago
  Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better? On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others. The thing is real, but so are the people. Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recognise this thing at work.
  - mc32 5mo ago
    There should be disincentives for poor performance, options to improve performance (training, counseling, etc.) and incentives for good performance (better raises, perks, etc.) to incentivize good employees.
  - aliasxneo 5mo ago
    > Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? The union should help them find roles they can be successful in. It should offer them more specialized training, mentorship programs, and other ways to help build up their skills. If they refuse to take any of these seriously, they should be fired. To me, that's the difference between poor performing and intentional laziness.
    - ytoawwhra92 5mo ago
      How is any of that the responsibility of organised labour? We used to expect training, mentorship, skill-building and effective job placement from employers. If anything, unions should be lobbying employers to provide those things to poor performers.
      - cindyllm 5mo ago
        [dead]
  - HDThoreaun 5mo ago
    > what should happen to poor performing people? In my experience most poor performers just arent putting the effort in. They should be made to understand that low effort compared to peers will lead to less money, yes. If theyre genuinely unable to perform the duties they should do something else/
    - pbronez 5mo ago
      Genuinely poor performers are so toxic. They might not recognize their poor performance and suck up infinite amounts of support for no improvement. They might be ultra-aware of their game and manipulate the institution in mind-boggling ways to protect their graft. You have to get these folks out ASAP. Of course, they could also be unrealized potential just waiting for someone to believe in them and mentor them to greatness. If you drop them too quickly you miss out on wonderful, loyal, capable people. The trick is being able to tell the difference quickly, make the best choice you can, and move on.
chii 5mo ago
> I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all Competition is required, rather than unionization. If an industry is dominated by monopolies, not only do customers suffer, workers do too. Unions don't really fix the problem - only make certain groups win over others.
- Muromec 5mo ago
  For once, the union is one of the rare in-groups that are very easy to join and actually benefit their members
  - missedthecue 5mo ago
    The problem is that they tend to benefit their members in a zero sum way. For example the LIRR wants a double digit raise not in exchange for hitting targets on on-time arrivals or some other metric. They want it or they strike and hold the community hostage. It bothers me that there's no value exchange it's just take take take, and ultimately at my expense.
    - AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
      Worse, public sector unions are ultimately at my expense in a way that I can't even fix by not buying the product, since they're taking it from my taxes.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Muromec 5mo ago
      Double digit raise in this economy and for the economic strata that does this work and is more exposed to prices more than some others, double digit sounds reasonable. The union just wants their members to not be piss poor. Is this bad?
      - missedthecue 5mo ago
finghin 5mo ago
Unions are supposed to defend the value of labour. I think in a fair society where losing your blue collar job didn't mean dog food for dinner the balance of responsibility and squeamishness could shift away from employers and unions in terms of keeping food in people's bellies after they get fired. Then unions and businesses can actually have somewhat aligned goals, which is better for everyone, really. In order to protect the long term value of a profession or some other labour corps, you can't skip efficiency and defend poor work ethic. I think to a degree the medical profession exemplifies this with professional bodies regulating conduct and standard of care/work. Part of this is the generally earnest approach to the scrutiny, but I believe part is the lack of immediate grave concern to anyone ‘on the stand,’ who can be presumed to earn comfortably, upon losing their job.
WarmWash 5mo ago
>But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. They don't exist for that reason, but their inevitable ground state is that. The fundamental and intractable problem with any form of socialization is that it naturally attracts free riders. The idea doesn't have a balanced equilibrium, so it's either logistically/bureaucratically heavy or always being pulled towards collapse. Everyone who starts these systems has pure intentions, and the initial members tend to be dedicated too. But over time it will either naturally decay, or turn into the thing it was trying to fight.
- Muromec 5mo ago
  A healthy organisation can reflect on this tendency and purge some free riders to preserve itself. The fact that it doesn't, to me personally, just means it's not under external pressure.
  - WarmWash 5mo ago
    If there is one thing free riders are generally skilled at, it's hiding the fact they are free riding. There is then an internal decay where as others learn the tricks, they realize that they can start coasting too, and they should, because why would you do extra work if you don't have to. To defeat this you need intense oversight, but then you yourself become the man with an iron fist. This is a super common theme whenever you dig into anything socialized. It works great when everyone understands the system and is dedicated to the work, the mission. But as soon as a single atom of "I can get away with not doing my full part" seeps in, it's like a seed crystal that eventually collapses the whole system.
    - HardlyCognizant 5mo ago
      It's the prisoner's dilemma. I believe any self-preservation optimized intelligence is going to suffer from these problems until those behaviors are countered in interaction by design (e.g. process, societal/cultural pressures, etc.) or removed from the baseline (i.e. evolved out.) Our desires make us our own worst enemies, and until we acknowledge and openly plan to counter these tendencies, any social structure at some scale is going to fail to them. Unfortunately, the problems we face as a species are increasingly at larger and larger scales. I'm not sure if we can remain what we would recognize as "human," and solve for this without surrendering some level of executive function to an entity not afflicted by it. Government and regulation are already expressions of this, while retaining our intrinsic nature, but history has demonstrated this is inherently unstable.
BobaFloutist 5mo ago
Honestly I think the problem is that unions are also acting as guilds. Which is to say, as a union, they make deals with companies and the government and fight for regulations requiring union labor, but then they turn around and act as a guild by restricting who can join and get trained and become union labor, keeping wages high with an artificial labor shortage. So you end up with a situation where you're only allowed to hire union elevator technicians, but also there aren't any union elevator technicians. They get high wages and all the work they want, and everyone else gets broken elevators.
josefritzishere 5mo ago
I am sorry but that is utter nonsense. Unions exist to bargain collectively to protect workers from exploitations, full stop. You will find more people who don’t want to work in the C-suite than anywhere else.
rstuart4133 5mo ago
> But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. It's a similar dynamic here in Australia, but it seems not in Germany and Japan. I think the difference is that in the USA and Australia the unions are organised on a craft or occupational basis. You see this in the sorts of laws they want passed - they are invariably after laws that only union members can do a certain job. It isn't always so direct. Doctors for example insist on certain qualifications, which seems fine and necessary at first glance, but then the doctors' associations somehow manage to gate the institutions that can issue the qualifications. It's interesting how doctors have no trouble with that, but computer engineers can't bring themselves to do it. Anyway, the outcome of "guild based unions" ends up being what others here noted. Instead of everyone in the same firm cooperating to get work done, they are all fighting to preserve their patch. In Germany and Japan, unions look to be organised around large companies. If the company goes broke the union disappears with them, so the company's incentives and the union's are more aligned. So much so the union reps are given seats on the board, and are expected to make a contribution. The unions are still focused on ensuring the distribution of profits goes more towards the employees than the shareholders of course, but nonetheless the outcome seems to be far less dysfunctional than the USA and Australian systems.

by phil21 5mo ago

aliasxneo 5mo ago

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience. > Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For example, rather than seeing poor-performing members as a risk to the union, the answer was to just lobby legally secured work so that companies had no choice but to hire its members. Which is quite the game, because I'm sure at face value it sounds great (companies can't ignore unions), but the hidden reality seemed to be that it just ensured these people always had a job.

Muromec 5mo ago
Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better? On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others. The thing is real, but so are the people. Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recognise this thing at work.
- mc32 5mo ago
  There should be disincentives for poor performance, options to improve performance (training, counseling, etc.) and incentives for good performance (better raises, perks, etc.) to incentivize good employees.
- aliasxneo 5mo ago
  > Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? The union should help them find roles they can be successful in. It should offer them more specialized training, mentorship programs, and other ways to help build up their skills. If they refuse to take any of these seriously, they should be fired. To me, that's the difference between poor performing and intentional laziness.
  - ytoawwhra92 5mo ago
    How is any of that the responsibility of organised labour? We used to expect training, mentorship, skill-building and effective job placement from employers. If anything, unions should be lobbying employers to provide those things to poor performers.
    - cindyllm 5mo ago
      [dead]
- HDThoreaun 5mo ago
  > what should happen to poor performing people? In my experience most poor performers just arent putting the effort in. They should be made to understand that low effort compared to peers will lead to less money, yes. If theyre genuinely unable to perform the duties they should do something else/
  - pbronez 5mo ago
    Genuinely poor performers are so toxic. They might not recognize their poor performance and suck up infinite amounts of support for no improvement. They might be ultra-aware of their game and manipulate the institution in mind-boggling ways to protect their graft. You have to get these folks out ASAP. Of course, they could also be unrealized potential just waiting for someone to believe in them and mentor them to greatness. If you drop them too quickly you miss out on wonderful, loyal, capable people. The trick is being able to tell the difference quickly, make the best choice you can, and move on.

chii 5mo ago

> I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all Competition is required, rather than unionization. If an industry is dominated by monopolies, not only do customers suffer, workers do too. Unions don't really fix the problem - only make certain groups win over others.

Muromec 5mo ago
For once, the union is one of the rare in-groups that are very easy to join and actually benefit their members
- missedthecue 5mo ago
  The problem is that they tend to benefit their members in a zero sum way. For example the LIRR wants a double digit raise not in exchange for hitting targets on on-time arrivals or some other metric. They want it or they strike and hold the community hostage. It bothers me that there's no value exchange it's just take take take, and ultimately at my expense.
  - AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
    Worse, public sector unions are ultimately at my expense in a way that I can't even fix by not buying the product, since they're taking it from my taxes.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Muromec 5mo ago
    Double digit raise in this economy and for the economic strata that does this work and is more exposed to prices more than some others, double digit sounds reasonable. The union just wants their members to not be piss poor. Is this bad?
    - missedthecue 5mo ago

finghin 5mo ago

Unions are supposed to defend the value of labour. I think in a fair society where losing your blue collar job didn't mean dog food for dinner the balance of responsibility and squeamishness could shift away from employers and unions in terms of keeping food in people's bellies after they get fired. Then unions and businesses can actually have somewhat aligned goals, which is better for everyone, really. In order to protect the long term value of a profession or some other labour corps, you can't skip efficiency and defend poor work ethic. I think to a degree the medical profession exemplifies this with professional bodies regulating conduct and standard of care/work. Part of this is the generally earnest approach to the scrutiny, but I believe part is the lack of immediate grave concern to anyone ‘on the stand,’ who can be presumed to earn comfortably, upon losing their job.

WarmWash 5mo ago

>But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. They don't exist for that reason, but their inevitable ground state is that. The fundamental and intractable problem with any form of socialization is that it naturally attracts free riders. The idea doesn't have a balanced equilibrium, so it's either logistically/bureaucratically heavy or always being pulled towards collapse. Everyone who starts these systems has pure intentions, and the initial members tend to be dedicated too. But over time it will either naturally decay, or turn into the thing it was trying to fight.

Muromec 5mo ago
A healthy organisation can reflect on this tendency and purge some free riders to preserve itself. The fact that it doesn't, to me personally, just means it's not under external pressure.
- WarmWash 5mo ago
  If there is one thing free riders are generally skilled at, it's hiding the fact they are free riding. There is then an internal decay where as others learn the tricks, they realize that they can start coasting too, and they should, because why would you do extra work if you don't have to. To defeat this you need intense oversight, but then you yourself become the man with an iron fist. This is a super common theme whenever you dig into anything socialized. It works great when everyone understands the system and is dedicated to the work, the mission. But as soon as a single atom of "I can get away with not doing my full part" seeps in, it's like a seed crystal that eventually collapses the whole system.
  - HardlyCognizant 5mo ago
    It's the prisoner's dilemma. I believe any self-preservation optimized intelligence is going to suffer from these problems until those behaviors are countered in interaction by design (e.g. process, societal/cultural pressures, etc.) or removed from the baseline (i.e. evolved out.) Our desires make us our own worst enemies, and until we acknowledge and openly plan to counter these tendencies, any social structure at some scale is going to fail to them. Unfortunately, the problems we face as a species are increasingly at larger and larger scales. I'm not sure if we can remain what we would recognize as "human," and solve for this without surrendering some level of executive function to an entity not afflicted by it. Government and regulation are already expressions of this, while retaining our intrinsic nature, but history has demonstrated this is inherently unstable.

BobaFloutist 5mo ago

Honestly I think the problem is that unions are also acting as guilds. Which is to say, as a union, they make deals with companies and the government and fight for regulations requiring union labor, but then they turn around and act as a guild by restricting who can join and get trained and become union labor, keeping wages high with an artificial labor shortage. So you end up with a situation where you're only allowed to hire union elevator technicians, but also there aren't any union elevator technicians. They get high wages and all the work they want, and everyone else gets broken elevators.

josefritzishere 5mo ago

I am sorry but that is utter nonsense. Unions exist to bargain collectively to protect workers from exploitations, full stop. You will find more people who don’t want to work in the C-suite than anywhere else.

rstuart4133 5mo ago

> But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. It's a similar dynamic here in Australia, but it seems not in Germany and Japan. I think the difference is that in the USA and Australia the unions are organised on a craft or occupational basis. You see this in the sorts of laws they want passed - they are invariably after laws that only union members can do a certain job. It isn't always so direct. Doctors for example insist on certain qualifications, which seems fine and necessary at first glance, but then the doctors' associations somehow manage to gate the institutions that can issue the qualifications. It's interesting how doctors have no trouble with that, but computer engineers can't bring themselves to do it. Anyway, the outcome of "guild based unions" ends up being what others here noted. Instead of everyone in the same firm cooperating to get work done, they are all fighting to preserve their patch. In Germany and Japan, unions look to be organised around large companies. If the company goes broke the union disappears with them, so the company's incentives and the union's are more aligned. So much so the union reps are given seats on the board, and are expected to make a contribution. The unions are still focused on ensuring the distribution of profits goes more towards the employees than the shareholders of course, but nonetheless the outcome seems to be far less dysfunctional than the USA and Australian systems.