Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#71

Post by Aloha »

almostApatriot1 wrote: post #50
Aloha wrote: post #21

I think a union is something you earn - not something foisted upon you. If you dont want workers to join a union, treat them well, pay them significantly above market rates, give good benefits.

the major appeal of the union is that you can't get fired or laid off. This type of job security is crucial because it gives you massive leverage when it comes to fighting for those other things. No matter how good the pay is, you can probably get better via striking, etc.

Thats not exactly true - you can be fired and laid off in a union, I've been both of those things while union.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#73

Post by aanm1988 »

steanne wrote: post #40
aanm1988 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this annoy me. A few decades ago unions were powerful forces for worker rights, and served a major purpose by allowing collective bargaining. Nowadays we have "right to work" laws being sponsored by companies and people somehow think it's "wrong" to join unions and bargain collectively. When I see posts like this, I shake my head and wonder where we went wrong.

oh, that's easy, the unions fought for what was fair, and when they got it they KEPT GOING. we need a good balance, not for the side who happens to have the power at the moment taking all they can get.

As opposed to corporations who stopped at a fair point when they started to kill unions off?

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#74

Post by steanne »

aanm1988 wrote: post #73
steanne wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, that's easy, the unions fought for what was fair, and when they got it they KEPT GOING. we need a good balance, not for the side who happens to have the power at the moment taking all they can get.

As opposed to corporations who stopped at a fair point when they started to kill unions off?

that would be addressed by the second sentence you completely ignored.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#75

Post by jhundal »

exabrial wrote: post #69
jhundal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point the majority of workers voted to organize. After that, anyone working there has made the choice to work a unionized job. I don't think it is fair to allow a single jobseeker to break the structure of a union this way. Why not consider asking these individuals to choose to work a different job if they object to paying union dues? In general, there's an information asymmetry between workers and employers…

> I don't think it is fair to allow a single jobseeker to break the structure of a union this way So it's fair to force them to put part of their paycheck towards something they have no interest in using? That's neither ethical nor fair.

EDIT: To try to keep the discussion focused, and the level of discourse high, let's try to find out exactly where we disagree:

You asked: Why is ethical or fair force a worker to pay union dues as part of a job?

My answer: Because the union's negotiation affects all employees it is ethical and fair to ask every employee to contribute. Allowing every employee to opt out greatly reduces the amount of resources the union has available to reach its aims.

The assumptions behind my answer:

- That the negotiation performed by the union does affect all workers in the job, whether union members or not.

- That collective bargaining enabled by unions can in many cases be a positive thing for workers.

- That right-to-work laws do indeed adversely affect the resources of a union. (The data shows that public sector union membership greatly dropped after Wisconsin's public sector right-to-work act passed: https://projects.jsonline.com/news/2016/11/27/for-unions-in-...)

Let's move this debate forward: Which part of my response/assumptions do you disagree with, and why?

(Aside: I'm actually not the biggest fan of public sector unions, but I think it's likely private sector laws would have a similar effect.)

(Original comment preserved below.)

------------------------------------------------------------

The union asks for that contribution because they are negotiating for all employees, and no one can claim that they'd negotiate themselves because the union has fought for the baseline. If the union has won the right to require that contribution for all workers, what is the issue with this requirement? Again, why try to debate whether the employee should have this choice when they had the initial choice to work a different job?

That said, I think that the right-to-work debate is a red herring. The first question we need to answer is whether collective bargaining can be a net benefit, and if so, how we can make it work.

Stepping back even further, I think folks tend to forget that model of an optimal free market carries several assumptions, perfect information being the one most notably broken by a large employer to single employee relationship. That doesn't mean that free market model isn't useful, in fact we should be trying to aim for the results of a perfect free market in most cases. But it does mean that there can be areas where a bit of intervention does a huge amount of good.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#76

Post by jhundal »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #36
aanm1988 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like it then vote with your feet.

This is like saying if you don't like company parties leave the company, instead of just 'don't go to the parties', which is what OP is asking for.

Technically, I don't think there is anything to prevent an employer for forcing you to attend company parties as a condition of employment. Of course the vast majority of employers wouldn't do this, but in this case your only choice is to go to the parties or take a different job.

Now an argument could be made that the employer-employee relationship is different from the union-employee relationship, but is there a reason that any such difference implies that a union can't set conditions for employment?

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#77

Post by Jabanga »

gnu8 wrote: post #24
Jabanga wrote: post #23

If collective bargaining wasn't mandatory, and employers were free to decide who to hire and fire, the manufacturing sector in the US would be vastly larger, and offer millions more jobs to Americans. There is very little that does more damage to society than the so-called labour movement.

Without the labour movement we'd have Triangle Shirtwaist fires and Ludlow massacres every week. I don't blame you for not knowing that, because our educational system is designed to produce obedient workers, not class agitators. You might want to pick up a history book though.

You're wrong. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire was a result of the economy being primitive at the time, with very little resources available per capita for risk reduction. Work place accidents were decreasing every single decade before cookie-cutter work safety standards were mandated. The world today would be extremely safe in and out of the workplace in the absence of such mandates.

This bias toward central economic planning and mandated standards is a consequence of the great complexity of a modern economy not being appreciated by the typical person. Central economic planning is based on oversimplifications that are easier to reason about.

As for the Ludlow Massacre, that was largely a result of illegal and violent actions by unions. We don't have those anymore, because unions impose their will through political decree nowadays.

Most teachers in the United States are unionized, and an increasing percentage are under collective bargaining agreements, to the great detriment of education:

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839...

The education system is consequently heavily biased toward unions and their dishonest narrative. Here in BC, teachers openly tell their students they hate the governing party (which stood up to the teachers union) and kids almost uniformly hate the governing party as well.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#78

Post by Jabanga »

mikeash wrote: post #26
Jabanga wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective bargaining is never mandatory on the employee side. The employee is not forced to work for a particular collective. The employer on the otherhand is forced, by law, to only hire people who are part of some government-recognized collective, known as a bargaining unit. In other words, employees can monopolize the employer's hiring options, using anti-free-market laws inspired by the 'labour' movement and soc…

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particula…

>If an employer really wants to hire non-union labor, they can leave their company and join a different one that doesn't have a union.

This makes no sense. The employer shouldn't be forced to 'have a union'. It's not a voluntary relationship, and thus it totally violates the company owner's right to their own private property.

Unions as they exist today are rent-seeking organizations that prey on employers. No wonder investors invest in other countries, and companies outsource.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#79

Post by Jabanga »

mikeash wrote: post #38
jgrowl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if someone should either be forced to join a union that they don't want to be apart of or just find another job . Doesn't this kinda provide an argument against unionizing in the first place? If you are joining a company that isn't part of a union you accepting that fact... why should employees be allowed to unionize when that it is against the wishes of the pre-existing wishes of the company?

I agree that this is an argument against unions, but only to the extent that it is also an argument against companies. Swap union/company and employee/employer in your argument and it remains just as valid.

They're not the same arguments at all. The corollary would be if you started working for a company, and the company then created a union with other companies, and made it illegal for you to work for any company other than those that are part of this corporate union.

In a free society, a company would be able to fire its workers for unionizing and hire new ones.

Post reply on HN