5 ms·

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith : Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks? I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.

freehunter 12y ago
Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.
- pc86 12y ago
  Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.
  - cmc31 12y ago
    Isn't this essentially how Wal Mart operates in the US today?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      When I was in college I worked at a regional Wal Mart competitor where I made minimum wage (not enough to live on) but got a nice discount if I bought from the store itself (which made my wages about enough to live on). It's as close to the old "company store" as they can legally get away with these days.
- ihnorton 12y ago
  That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the people wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.
debacle 12y ago
> I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer. Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer. > seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.
rtpg 12y ago
There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this. A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions. The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.
justin66 12y ago
> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal. > Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable. Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  "...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal." "You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer." Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions? To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions? In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1] And what do the "consumers" get for that? The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2] Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle. As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior? [1] http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100-political-donors-contribute-125-billion-16436 http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100... [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-score-at-bottom-nation-reading-math http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-s... edit: typo

freehunter 12y ago

Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

pc86 12y ago
Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- cmc31 12y ago
  Isn't this essentially how Wal Mart operates in the US today?
  - freehunter 12y ago
    When I was in college I worked at a regional Wal Mart competitor where I made minimum wage (not enough to live on) but got a nice discount if I bought from the store itself (which made my wages about enough to live on). It's as close to the old "company store" as they can legally get away with these days.
ihnorton 12y ago
That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the people wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.

debacle 12y ago

> I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer. Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer. > seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.

rtpg 12y ago

There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this. A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions. The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.

justin66 12y ago

> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal. > Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable. Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.

wozniacki 12y ago
"...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal." "You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer." Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions? To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions? In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1] And what do the "consumers" get for that? The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2] Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle. As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior? [1] http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100-political-donors-contribute-125-billion-16436 http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100... [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-score-at-bottom-nation-reading-math http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-s... edit: typo