11 ms·

An Alternative Theory of Unions [2007]

33 points by sillysaurus2 13y ago

alejantrot 13y ago
Um, no. Factory owners have a lot of power (lobbying, uniqueness, etc) when compared to factory workers. We're talking about a newly industrialized world, with a new working class. Their response was to form alliances with each other because they share common interests. There are many reasons why unions are failing now. Factory workers do not form 80% of the workforce (in the developed world) any more. People now work in various different positions and lines of work, so they don't feel that they have mutuals interests with many others. Power brings corruption. When the unions gathered a lot of power, we started seeing politicians emerging from the unions to take the power. And gradually they started betraying the people that voted for them and took the unions down with them. Also, there is now a more egoistic mentality in most people. People tend to believe that they're more worthy than the rest, which is all nice until you realize that that is what most people think and only a few of them are actually going to make it. There are many other explanations and possible causes on why unions failed: "The best they can do is fall back on the default explanation of people living in fallen civilizations" No, and we can also do better than a startup analogy that pretends that unions and strikes were anomalies in production that factory owners threw money at. There was a lot of blood spilled for the right to form unions, the 8hour work day, etc. No, most factory owners a couple of centuries ago were not just giving away money like a startup. They hired thugs, killers, had governors in their pockets and used the police, etc.
edent 13y ago
Alternatively, perhaps Unions have declined after having suffered from decades of negative publicity from capitalists. Unions - bringing you weekends, the NHS, paid holidays, sick pay, protection from unfair dismissal, safety standards to ensure you don't get injured and die, and stopping discrimination and exploitation. What's not to like? I'm a highly educated and well paid technology worker - and I'm in a Trade Union - http://www.prospect.org.uk/ http://www.prospect.org.uk/ They've helped me when I was made redundant, have held my hand when dealing with difficult work situations, and given me training when my employer wouldn't. Here's the way I look at it - your employer has some very high priced lawyers on the payroll. If they (or your boss) decide to screw you over, who would you have on your side? Union dues (in the UK, at least) are the cheapest and most effective form of "insurance" you can have.
- mjn 13y ago
  It's similar here in Denmark. Most people are members of a union, because it's cheap, and the union has experts in labor law and contracts, while most workers are not experts in those things. We give similar advice to startup founders: don't sign anything without getting a good lawyer to review it first. You could hire a private lawyer as a worker as well, but joining a union is typically more cost-effective. One thing that helps in Denmark is that the individual advocacy angle and the general bargaining angle are separated. I can join any of several unions, or none, as I wish. In my case the researcher's union or the engineer's union are both decent choices. But my broader workplace conditions are negotiated between my employer and the union for this sector of the economy, not my personal union (they might be the same, might not be). As a result there is also no such thing as a "unionized" or a "non-unionized" business; every business over a certain size is unionized in a sense, because labor conditions are always negotiated between employers and employees on a collective basis. Generally this produces a much nicer situation, in which I don't have to become a DIY expert in employment contracts in order to avoid being taken advantage of. It also helps keep onerous terms out of employment contracts, because someone with actual negotiating power and knowledge (rather than me as an individual employee) will object if the employer tries to include a non-compete clause, or similar types of terms. Even highly-paid, intelligent techies in the U.S. often fail to do that: in states where it's legal, suckering people into non-competes is extremely common, and they don't always even realize it until it's too late.
- afsina 13y ago
  I cannot comment on the unions for workers in private companies, But I think In my country unions built for public workers and officials are blood sucking leeches on tax payers. They are highly ideological and so far I have not seen any good coming from them in my line of work. I am forced to enter an union and I have to pay them a good sum for nothing and I cannot leave because they create a mechanism that you will loose benefits if you are not a member (Before they used to give those benefits without a union anyway). There are laws protecting the workers already and I would rather take the chances and deal with my employee on my own when I am in trouble.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  The trouble is, people tend to look on things like working time controls, paid holidays, etc., as just what they're entitled to, without looking at how they came about.
blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
It has always seemed like there was a real libertarian streak among silicon valley types, but this kind of historical revisionism sounds very "southern republican" to my ear. The thing is that people fought and died for the, if this is to be believed, trivial concessions that management made to workers. You know, those same trivial concessions that management made with little or no animosity that stemmed from entrenched political viewpoints or historical precedents. This article is the labor relations version of Jesus riding a dinosaur. Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't this Paul Graham guy have something to do with this site?
danso 13y ago
> Difficult though it may be to imagine now, manufacturing was a growth industry in the mid twentieth century. This was an era when small firms making everything from cars to candy were getting consolidated into a new kind of corporation with national reach and huge economies of scale. You had to grow fast or die. Workers were for these companies what servers are for an Internet startup. A reliable supply was more important than low cost. 2007 was when the iPhone was introduced, before Foxconn was in the public mindset....but China's massive growth in manufacturing was well known by 2007...So why isn't China flooded in high-paying union jobs? Or is it because Chinese industrialists and laborers are savvy and forward thinking enough to not every go through the union-building phase?
- rsynnott 13y ago
  > So why isn't China flooded in high-paying union jobs? The Chinese government has very strict restrictions on unions; they're effectively illegal. This is normally considered political oppression, not forward-thinkingness.
  - danso 13y ago
    Right, but business can profoundly influence government. Hong Kong, for instance, was largely allowed to do business as usual after the British handover. And Shanghai: http://rt.com/business/china-shanghai-free-zone-527/ http://rt.com/business/china-shanghai-free-zone-527/ > China launched its first experimental economic free trade zone in Shanghai, seeking to transform the city into an international financial hub and drive yuan convertibility. It is intended to boost growth which is now heading for a 23-year low. If a reliable workforce was so key to strong manufacturing, as the OP claims, then it would seem that there would be strong advocacy for workers' rights. That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions.
    - nl 13y ago
      I have no idea which way you are arguing, since the OP was you, and your replies don't seem to address the points raised. If a reliable workforce was so key to strong manufacturing, as the OP claims Agreed. then it would seem that there would be strong advocacy for workers' rights. Disagree, and historically this hasn't been the case. For example, in 19th century Britain the demand for cheap labour effectively depopulated the countryside as people rushed to the cities to work in factories. There was a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions (eg, children working in mills), and it was unions and a public campaign that stopped that. That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions. There are similarities between China and Britain in the industrial revolution - a huge rural population rushing to the cities for better opportunities. Both Britain and China were hugely successful at creating a massive manufacturing sector while completely ignoring workers rights (although to be fair, China seems better than 19th century Britain in that regard). Like I said - I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not. If I am, then good.
theorique 13y ago
Unions are just another group of people, with leaders and political aims and a focus on advancing their own interests. (This isn't a judgment - management does this, and non-unionized workers do this too). I've seen unions mired in bureaucracy and questionable decisions, just as I've seen unions with an honest interest in advocating for their members (for example, legally defending members from bizarre attacks from the public and unfounded criticism). When the leadership and rank-and-file act intelligently, then unions work well. When they operate in bureaucratic and self-serving ways, then they break down and lose public support.
varjag 13y ago
When you run a seed fund, everything looks like a startup :) With all respect to pg, the similarity isn't really convincing. The hottest years of industrialization were before unions finally took over; the era that brought us communism and world wars. Unions were part of the meta-stable order the world settled to then. Now, as the industry is on decline in developed world (due to a multitude of political and social factors), the unions also lose their potency.
pron 13y ago
This explanation may well be a partial explanation, but it cannot, by any means, be the only reason, because it discounts a shift in the view Americans (and to a lesser extent the rest of the western world) have toward the worker vs. the consumer. It is undeniable that in the past decades American businesses have placed increasing importance on consumer satisfaction over worker rights and dignity; on low prices vs. fair prices etc. So this is probably as much a cultural change as a "rational" reaction to economic pressure.
iSnow 13y ago
Man, sometime this union bashing must get old. Maybe unions don't have the leverage they had because China. Maybe unions don't have the leverage they had because per-worker productivity went through the roof while production did not keep pace.
- pron 13y ago
  I am very pro-union and very sensitive to union bashing, but this article is not guilty of this particular bias. If anything, it might be guilty of a slight is-ought fallacy[1]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
vidarh 13y ago
It might be worth trying to get a count at how many workers died fighting for the 8 hour working day over several decdades before presuming that these concessions were supposedly granted easily. May 1st as the international day for workers demonstrations was a tradition that in part started in commemoration of the Chicago Haymarket massacre, for example. US unions first started agitating for an 8 hour working day in 1836. Not even the introduction of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 went all the way there. Hundred years of demonstrations and strikes, leading to the deaths of dozens of labor organisers was insufficient. To then try to propose the idea that it was easy for management to give in to unions, is ridiculous on its face, and indicates a lack of knowledge of the labor movement.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Speaking of deaths, people too often focus on benefits and not safety. Even in post-war America, a lot of good men died during that industrial boom. An old co-worker of mine was a shift supervisor in a steel mill and he had horror-stories, and this was in a union shop. These jobs involve a scale of machinery that makes the human body look like a slug in an elephant stampede. The physics of the situation are horribly unforgiving. Without anyone pulling for safety standards, a heavy industrial facility can be a literal and figurative meat-grinder.
jseliger 13y ago
One other point about the "golden age" of unions (say, 1945 – 1973): it occurred at a time when almost the entire developed world had destroyed its entire industrial plant. At the same time, much of the developing world as we know it now had caught a nasty ideological virus that's not good for industry and trade.
philwelch 13y ago
In the 19th century, most corporations operated in trusts and cartels, making it difficult for workers to get a fair deal without forming cartels of their own (unions). Most of the violent struggle labor proponents go on about was during this era, when monopolistic trusts would have hired guns (Pinkertons) to suppress labor disputes, and unions in response developed a tendency towards mob violence of their own. By the 20th century, progressives had enshrined many labor protections into law and broken up the trusts. Some industrialists, like Henry Ford, unilaterally increased wages to inspire worker loyalty and poach the best workers from his competitors. This is perhaps the most analogous situation to the tech boom we see today, and it's this stage in history that pg writes about. Yet despite their gains, unions not only continued operating as cartels but even, in many cases, continued their violent tendencies and developed corruption and ties to organized crime. Today we have a situation where labor unions have achieved absolute control of certain sectors (longshoremen, teachers, police, Hollywood, airline pilots). The results vary, but are pretty bad for everyone except whoever runs the union. Senior airline pilots manage to capture all the profits generated by the airline while pushing all of the risks onto stockholders, leading to a bankruptcy cycle. (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines). Longshoremen's unions control the assignment of work, erecting a barrier to entry for prospective longshoremen. Hollywood guilds are satisfied by simply rent-seeking. Teachers unions establish themselves in the public eye as credible authorities on education rather than simply a labor union seeking better terms for its members. (Rhetoric about standardized testing can't be taken at face value--notice how often you hear that a teacher's subjective judgment of student performance is more reliable than a standardized measurement. What the NEA really fears is any system that can measure the performance of teachers rather than simply trusting them implicitly once they have their union card.) Police unions--well, you tell me why shooting a black kid in cold blood gets a cop paid suspension and anyone else criminal charges. In most cases, unions will resist automation, resist any measurement of performance in favor of seniority, and otherwise impede the efficient operation of their employers. And in many cases, they don't even help the median worker all that much. Once a union has a closed shop, the tendency to reward seniority will metastasize until the union shits on junior pilots and "casual" longshoremen more than management would have done in the first place. And this is why people who support unions will tell you all about what unions did a hundred years ago, because what they're doing now is not a very pretty story. (Note: I'm referring chiefly to American unions. In Germany, unions have seats on the board of directors and presumably also stock in the companies their members work for. This presumably tempers the parasitic tendencies American unions have developed. It's worth noting that UAW vehemently resisted having to hold stock in GM as a condition of the government bailing them out of GM's insolvency.)

33 points by sillysaurus2 13y ago

Um, no. Factory owners have a lot of power (lobbying, uniqueness, etc) when compared to factory workers. We're talking about a newly industrialized world, with a new working class. Their response was to form alliances with each other because they share common interests. There are many reasons why unions are failing now. Factory workers do not form 80% of the workforce (in the developed world) any more. People now work in various different positions and lines of work, so they don't feel that they have mutuals interests with many others. Power brings corruption. When the unions gathered a lot of power, we started seeing politicians emerging from the unions to take the power. And gradually they started betraying the people that voted for them and took the unions down with them. Also, there is now a more egoistic mentality in most people. People tend to believe that they're more worthy than the rest, which is all nice until you realize that that is what most people think and only a few of them are actually going to make it. There are many other explanations and possible causes on why unions failed: "The best they can do is fall back on the default explanation of people living in fallen civilizations" No, and we can also do better than a startup analogy that pretends that unions and strikes were anomalies in production that factory owners threw money at. There was a lot of blood spilled for the right to form unions, the 8hour work day, etc. No, most factory owners a couple of centuries ago were not just giving away money like a startup. They hired thugs, killers, had governors in their pockets and used the police, etc.

edent 13y ago

Alternatively, perhaps Unions have declined after having suffered from decades of negative publicity from capitalists. Unions - bringing you weekends, the NHS, paid holidays, sick pay, protection from unfair dismissal, safety standards to ensure you don't get injured and die, and stopping discrimination and exploitation. What's not to like? I'm a highly educated and well paid technology worker - and I'm in a Trade Union - http://www.prospect.org.uk/ http://www.prospect.org.uk/ They've helped me when I was made redundant, have held my hand when dealing with difficult work situations, and given me training when my employer wouldn't. Here's the way I look at it - your employer has some very high priced lawyers on the payroll. If they (or your boss) decide to screw you over, who would you have on your side? Union dues (in the UK, at least) are the cheapest and most effective form of "insurance" you can have.

mjn 13y ago
It's similar here in Denmark. Most people are members of a union, because it's cheap, and the union has experts in labor law and contracts, while most workers are not experts in those things. We give similar advice to startup founders: don't sign anything without getting a good lawyer to review it first. You could hire a private lawyer as a worker as well, but joining a union is typically more cost-effective. One thing that helps in Denmark is that the individual advocacy angle and the general bargaining angle are separated. I can join any of several unions, or none, as I wish. In my case the researcher's union or the engineer's union are both decent choices. But my broader workplace conditions are negotiated between my employer and the union for this sector of the economy, not my personal union (they might be the same, might not be). As a result there is also no such thing as a "unionized" or a "non-unionized" business; every business over a certain size is unionized in a sense, because labor conditions are always negotiated between employers and employees on a collective basis. Generally this produces a much nicer situation, in which I don't have to become a DIY expert in employment contracts in order to avoid being taken advantage of. It also helps keep onerous terms out of employment contracts, because someone with actual negotiating power and knowledge (rather than me as an individual employee) will object if the employer tries to include a non-compete clause, or similar types of terms. Even highly-paid, intelligent techies in the U.S. often fail to do that: in states where it's legal, suckering people into non-competes is extremely common, and they don't always even realize it until it's too late.
afsina 13y ago
I cannot comment on the unions for workers in private companies, But I think In my country unions built for public workers and officials are blood sucking leeches on tax payers. They are highly ideological and so far I have not seen any good coming from them in my line of work. I am forced to enter an union and I have to pay them a good sum for nothing and I cannot leave because they create a mechanism that you will loose benefits if you are not a member (Before they used to give those benefits without a union anyway). There are laws protecting the workers already and I would rather take the chances and deal with my employee on my own when I am in trouble.
rsynnott 13y ago
The trouble is, people tend to look on things like working time controls, paid holidays, etc., as just what they're entitled to, without looking at how they came about.

blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago

It has always seemed like there was a real libertarian streak among silicon valley types, but this kind of historical revisionism sounds very "southern republican" to my ear. The thing is that people fought and died for the, if this is to be believed, trivial concessions that management made to workers. You know, those same trivial concessions that management made with little or no animosity that stemmed from entrenched political viewpoints or historical precedents. This article is the labor relations version of Jesus riding a dinosaur. Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't this Paul Graham guy have something to do with this site?

danso 13y ago

> Difficult though it may be to imagine now, manufacturing was a growth industry in the mid twentieth century. This was an era when small firms making everything from cars to candy were getting consolidated into a new kind of corporation with national reach and huge economies of scale. You had to grow fast or die. Workers were for these companies what servers are for an Internet startup. A reliable supply was more important than low cost. 2007 was when the iPhone was introduced, before Foxconn was in the public mindset....but China's massive growth in manufacturing was well known by 2007...So why isn't China flooded in high-paying union jobs? Or is it because Chinese industrialists and laborers are savvy and forward thinking enough to not every go through the union-building phase?

rsynnott 13y ago
> So why isn't China flooded in high-paying union jobs? The Chinese government has very strict restrictions on unions; they're effectively illegal. This is normally considered political oppression, not forward-thinkingness.
- danso 13y ago
  Right, but business can profoundly influence government. Hong Kong, for instance, was largely allowed to do business as usual after the British handover. And Shanghai: http://rt.com/business/china-shanghai-free-zone-527/ http://rt.com/business/china-shanghai-free-zone-527/ > China launched its first experimental economic free trade zone in Shanghai, seeking to transform the city into an international financial hub and drive yuan convertibility. It is intended to boost growth which is now heading for a 23-year low. If a reliable workforce was so key to strong manufacturing, as the OP claims, then it would seem that there would be strong advocacy for workers' rights. That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions.
  - nl 13y ago
    I have no idea which way you are arguing, since the OP was you, and your replies don't seem to address the points raised. If a reliable workforce was so key to strong manufacturing, as the OP claims Agreed. then it would seem that there would be strong advocacy for workers' rights. Disagree, and historically this hasn't been the case. For example, in 19th century Britain the demand for cheap labour effectively depopulated the countryside as people rushed to the cities to work in factories. There was a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions (eg, children working in mills), and it was unions and a public campaign that stopped that. That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions. There are similarities between China and Britain in the industrial revolution - a huge rural population rushing to the cities for better opportunities. Both Britain and China were hugely successful at creating a massive manufacturing sector while completely ignoring workers rights (although to be fair, China seems better than 19th century Britain in that regard). Like I said - I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not. If I am, then good.

theorique 13y ago

Unions are just another group of people, with leaders and political aims and a focus on advancing their own interests. (This isn't a judgment - management does this, and non-unionized workers do this too). I've seen unions mired in bureaucracy and questionable decisions, just as I've seen unions with an honest interest in advocating for their members (for example, legally defending members from bizarre attacks from the public and unfounded criticism). When the leadership and rank-and-file act intelligently, then unions work well. When they operate in bureaucratic and self-serving ways, then they break down and lose public support.

varjag 13y ago

When you run a seed fund, everything looks like a startup :) With all respect to pg, the similarity isn't really convincing. The hottest years of industrialization were before unions finally took over; the era that brought us communism and world wars. Unions were part of the meta-stable order the world settled to then. Now, as the industry is on decline in developed world (due to a multitude of political and social factors), the unions also lose their potency.

pron 13y ago

This explanation may well be a partial explanation, but it cannot, by any means, be the only reason, because it discounts a shift in the view Americans (and to a lesser extent the rest of the western world) have toward the worker vs. the consumer. It is undeniable that in the past decades American businesses have placed increasing importance on consumer satisfaction over worker rights and dignity; on low prices vs. fair prices etc. So this is probably as much a cultural change as a "rational" reaction to economic pressure.

iSnow 13y ago

Man, sometime this union bashing must get old. Maybe unions don't have the leverage they had because China. Maybe unions don't have the leverage they had because per-worker productivity went through the roof while production did not keep pace.

pron 13y ago
I am very pro-union and very sensitive to union bashing, but this article is not guilty of this particular bias. If anything, it might be guilty of a slight is-ought fallacy[1]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

vidarh 13y ago

It might be worth trying to get a count at how many workers died fighting for the 8 hour working day over several decdades before presuming that these concessions were supposedly granted easily. May 1st as the international day for workers demonstrations was a tradition that in part started in commemoration of the Chicago Haymarket massacre, for example. US unions first started agitating for an 8 hour working day in 1836. Not even the introduction of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 went all the way there. Hundred years of demonstrations and strikes, leading to the deaths of dozens of labor organisers was insufficient. To then try to propose the idea that it was easy for management to give in to unions, is ridiculous on its face, and indicates a lack of knowledge of the labor movement.

Pxtl 13y ago
Speaking of deaths, people too often focus on benefits and not safety. Even in post-war America, a lot of good men died during that industrial boom. An old co-worker of mine was a shift supervisor in a steel mill and he had horror-stories, and this was in a union shop. These jobs involve a scale of machinery that makes the human body look like a slug in an elephant stampede. The physics of the situation are horribly unforgiving. Without anyone pulling for safety standards, a heavy industrial facility can be a literal and figurative meat-grinder.

jseliger 13y ago

One other point about the "golden age" of unions (say, 1945 – 1973): it occurred at a time when almost the entire developed world had destroyed its entire industrial plant. At the same time, much of the developing world as we know it now had caught a nasty ideological virus that's not good for industry and trade.

philwelch 13y ago

In the 19th century, most corporations operated in trusts and cartels, making it difficult for workers to get a fair deal without forming cartels of their own (unions). Most of the violent struggle labor proponents go on about was during this era, when monopolistic trusts would have hired guns (Pinkertons) to suppress labor disputes, and unions in response developed a tendency towards mob violence of their own. By the 20th century, progressives had enshrined many labor protections into law and broken up the trusts. Some industrialists, like Henry Ford, unilaterally increased wages to inspire worker loyalty and poach the best workers from his competitors. This is perhaps the most analogous situation to the tech boom we see today, and it's this stage in history that pg writes about. Yet despite their gains, unions not only continued operating as cartels but even, in many cases, continued their violent tendencies and developed corruption and ties to organized crime. Today we have a situation where labor unions have achieved absolute control of certain sectors (longshoremen, teachers, police, Hollywood, airline pilots). The results vary, but are pretty bad for everyone except whoever runs the union. Senior airline pilots manage to capture all the profits generated by the airline while pushing all of the risks onto stockholders, leading to a bankruptcy cycle. (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines). Longshoremen's unions control the assignment of work, erecting a barrier to entry for prospective longshoremen. Hollywood guilds are satisfied by simply rent-seeking. Teachers unions establish themselves in the public eye as credible authorities on education rather than simply a labor union seeking better terms for its members. (Rhetoric about standardized testing can't be taken at face value--notice how often you hear that a teacher's subjective judgment of student performance is more reliable than a standardized measurement. What the NEA really fears is any system that can measure the performance of teachers rather than simply trusting them implicitly once they have their union card.) Police unions--well, you tell me why shooting a black kid in cold blood gets a cop paid suspension and anyone else criminal charges. In most cases, unions will resist automation, resist any measurement of performance in favor of seniority, and otherwise impede the efficient operation of their employers. And in many cases, they don't even help the median worker all that much. Once a union has a closed shop, the tendency to reward seniority will metastasize until the union shits on junior pilots and "casual" longshoremen more than management would have done in the first place. And this is why people who support unions will tell you all about what unions did a hundred years ago, because what they're doing now is not a very pretty story. (Note: I'm referring chiefly to American unions. In Germany, unions have seats on the board of directors and presumably also stock in the companies their members work for. This presumably tempers the parasitic tendencies American unions have developed. It's worth noting that UAW vehemently resisted having to hold stock in GM as a condition of the government bailing them out of GM's insolvency.)