Hacker News

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.

The experience which I had which sums up the negatives about unions was when I was working at the then 4th largest printer in the U.S., and the largest privately owned print shop, when I pulled up in my then several years old Chevy Cavalier and parked next to a one year newer one --- an erstwhile union rep then pulled up in a brand new Lincoln Town Car and got out and asked me if I was interested in unionizing the company --- I pointed to the car I was parked next to and stated, "That car belongs to the owner of the company, it's the first new car he ever purchased, previously having driven company vans which had such high mileage that the company auctioned them off. Why would I give money to someone who is driving an even nicer car?"

The flip side was when the company owner retired from active management to the board of directors, and a management consultant was brought in to make the company more profitable --- he opened the curtains of the boardroom where he was making his pitch, pointed out at the parking lot filled with nice cars and trucks in good repair and stated, "You're paying too many people too much money."

An uncle of mine in the coal region of the northwestern Virginia mountain once noted that a local union organizer was noted for having 3 things in his trunk:

- a mimeograph

- a fifth of whiskey

- a sawed-off shotgun

Any discussion of unions needs to include a history of the Pinkertons.

This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon.

Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall.

Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore.

Additionally most companies arguments against unions make the assumption that EVERYONE wants to be part of that top percentage, that everyone is extremely motivated to move up the ladder, etc. Also they bank on convincing everyone they could be part of that top percentage that moves up.

But statistically only so many can, and there is no universe where everyone can be that top worker who is successful because only so many can move up anyways.

Edit: Adding that this is from my perspective on US views of unions. I don't know much about how it differs elsewhere since many point out it seems to be done differently here vs elsewhere.

The same behavior displayed by union workers occurs at a level where people can hide behind a title (Vice President, department head, whatever). Yet people rarely look as critically at senior management as they do at union workers.

I also find it that people who are critical of union workers never seem to be critical of police or fire fighters, both of whom are unionized.

My dad was a union worker for 19 years and I don't think ever displayed any of the negative characteristics assigned to unionized workers.

> never once actually did any work

I work at a company creating wealth, and heirs who own stock collect dividends from the company. What work did they do? You're talking about the guy sitting near you who you don't feel is working hard enough, and nothing of the parasitic heirs expropriating the product of unpaid surplus time of those working and creating wealth. Which unions are formed to rest control back from.

My wife is in a Union and she has been getting info that has nothing to do with her job. Some unions cross pollinate with whatever cause someone in the union is interested in. She wants a raise but can't because of collective bargaining, but the union isn't doing anything about that. However they are talking about other political issues. So her dues are not helping her but whatever political issue is being promoted.

i like my union because they force the management to actually take care of our equipment. every non-union job i've had involves a lot of making fucked up shit kind of work. that's what i want from a union, tangible benefits to my working conditions. it's not a social club, and i'm not one to be worried about the caliber of people i associate with.

Similar mixed opinions. I think labor absolutely has an ability to make collective decisions but I also believe business should have the ability to fire at will and I am not convinced that unions should be protected from that.

I have only been exposed to unions like dock workers where who you know or the color of your skin matter more than your ability to execute on the job.

I had similar experiences as a former unionized worker. Unions definitely solve some problems, but they're not a panacea, and a lot of company BS just gets replaced by an equivalent amount of union BS. The most miserable people I've ever worked with were people at my former union with 10+ years on the job (I remember one lady was in the process of suing the company AND the union, lol); they couldn't leave without losing all their seniority and benefits, couldn't be fired, but still had a long way to go before retirement.

It feels like a systems problem. It seems like the same theme that we see in for say, startup to corporate transformation. I think ultimately it comes down to size. They become too big and the power consumes. And they become what they once fought.

It's rather arbitrary to monolithlize "union members" based on this limited experience.

Your anecdote is useful and will be upvoted

Very similar experiences here. My first job was in a union shop, but you could not be forced to join. Whether you joined or not, though, you had dues taken from your pay. I refused to join initially because I could choose to join at any moment, it wasn't a locked decision. I immediately had people trying to convince me to join, while within months of working there I realized how little pride or effort anyone took in their work. I worked at that company for three years and never joined the union, which apparently made the management think I wanted to be in management because they kept trying to promote me. I never wanted to be in management (then). I was easily 6x as productive as anyone else there, and I saw lots of really ridiculous petty corruption take place amongst the union members. Really soured me on unions, despite the general high level idea being something I agree with. I can't imagine ever joining a union.

Another issue with unions is that they should be symbiotic but often transition to parasitic. What I mean is there are times despite it being obvious the demands will drive companies into either re-org or bankruptcy proceedings they’ll go full steam. The demands also at time accelerate offshoring or sending some of the work over-seas. Obviously all these scenarios are detrimental to the future of the workforces they represent.

It'a worth noting shareholders also provide no value. We need to fix both ends of the equation to move forward as a society.

Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into the dirt, I'm likely right. Also let me be clear, I'm not attacking your comment but what sort of comment would be most-likely amplified by anti-union forces.

> must compensate that worker with two days’ pay

The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications.

> My view is that -- with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad, and worth fighting.

There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that some are dysfunctional, but making a claim like "with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad" needs a lot more evidence. My counter-evidence is simple: historically, there's a direct correlation with the strength of unions and the existence of a strong middle class.

I'm generally pro-union and certainly fair wage, but it's important to keep in mind that unions will grow into their own power centers and have leadership with its own internal goals which are not aligned with either their working members nor the employers.

I wonder if that's actually true - unionbusting is mostly an emotional issue for leaders and owners so I wonder if there's any calculation involved.

I've seen corporate HR got to insane (illegal) lengths to "stick it" to people trying to unionize - to the point of being severely fined.

So I wonder if anyone actually calculated financials here.

1.5bn is a drop in the bucket.

It's cheaper to try and block other workers from getting a union card in your union to limit supply than trying to up your skills, as well.

yeah but how much are employers spending to lobby, etc, and is that not a significant force-multiplier on their 1.5B direct spend against unions?

They have the lawmakers on their side.

Yeah, total us payroll is around 15T. They are basically spending $10 per employee per year. Or 1/10000 of the total spending on wages. This is actually small in terms of political spending. There are random scam ballot measures in CA that get more spending per voter than this. *edit: the actual report details this is just for services related to efforts targeting their own work force via lawyers and consultants. The total spending on the issue is likely much higher: https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-employers-spend-more-tha...

Stuff like this and also lobbying have an incredibly high ROI. Once a company has reached a certain size investing in changing rules to their favor is the best investment they can make.

They don't need to spend that much to convince people, Americans are already predisposed to hate unions (see the comments in this thread).

we’re nowhere near that problem today. don’t worry.

Oh no, the unions are going to demand fair pay and good working conditions :(

Even unions like SAG-AFTRA, which is one of the most extreme ones I can consider barely reach 1% of the harm employers cause.

Any amount of power a labor union could have pales in comparison to what employers have over you as an individual.

that was my first thought too

I feel like the general consensus on most of the recent layoffs were that they severance was pretty generous. If it seems to be working okay, why do we need to introduce additional inefficiencies to get something we already have?

democracy in the workplace

Wage theft is saving them tens of billions in the US every year. So they are hardly spending all of that for this!

I doubt it's close to everything they saved.

$1.5B is roughly the wage theft recovered between 2021-2023. It's estimated that more than $15B in wage theft occurs annually just from minimum wage shortfalls.

See: https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-2021-23/

Keep in mind that wage theft is narrowly defined to include only blatantly illegal actions such as underpaying minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, requiring off-the-clock work, denying meal breaks, etc. It that doesn't even get into more general wage suppression via abusing visas, anti-poaching collusion with competitors (a favorite pastime of FANNG), and at-or-below inflation raise policies, among other things, which have caused wages to diverge from productivity over the last half century.