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

Unions work

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 237 posts

Re: Unions work

#71

Post by chaostheory »

openthc wrote: post #61
timbit42 wrote: post #4

They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.

Any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?

Historically, co-ops arise from the ashes of a dead or dying company where the workers know the process inside and out.

Edit: the other instances (much fewer) are when the company founders either start with a co-op in mind or want to transition their company to one as part of their legacy

Re: Unions work

#72

Post by andrei_says_ »

braza wrote: post #43

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements…

Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.?

From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.

Re: Unions work

#73

Post by treyd »

Jensson wrote: post #42
ShrigmaMale wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops. They have lots of money to do it, it's pro-worker, and it enables them to own the means of production. Unions ironically act very conservative these days. They could take some bold steps to potentially create very worker-friendly, worker-owned shops, which would create a voluntary, non-coercive path towards the "market soci…

> I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops Because that requires skillsets they don't have. People with the skills to start, manage and run companies usually aren't workers so not a part of the union, and I doubt the union members would be happy if the union spent lots of money to hire managers to bet on a startup.

> Because that requires skillsets they don't have.

This is reductive, union organizers have management skills that would transfer over if needed. The reason co-ops are not more common is moreso because there aren't the same kinds of institutions that support their growth like there are for traditional companies.

Re: Unions work

#74

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #25
londons_explore wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good chunk of employers will let you work a 4 day workweek in return for a 20% pay cut. For most people here on HN, you could probably survive on a 20% pay cut - you'd just have to have the kids share a bedroom rather than having one each and a guest room. Downside: Those on a 4 day workweek really struggle to get promoted to senior positions.

The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almos…

Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week?

Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40?

It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth.

There are relatively few jobs where equal productivity continues with the reduced work week. They are all office jobs.

It is impossible that even if companies were forced to go with a reduced work week and were unable to cheat this regulation to any meaningful degree, that they would continue to pay the same for 20% less productivity. Worst case scenario for them is that they simply allow inflation to erode pay more than it does already. Given that even many menial workers earn above minimum wage, there are very few jobs where this isn't possible (and those few jobs are likely part-time anyway, where this reform is irrelevant).

If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.

Re: Unions work

#75

Post by Guvante »

dleslie wrote: post #37
Guvante wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elevator operators were not replaced by buttons. Elevator operators were replaced by very complex computers with many redundant censors. You had elevator operators for safety not convenience... Similarly you seem to have the common misconception that the purpose of a writer is to churn out random text which can be replaced with LLM vs building a coherent story and guiding it through the creative process in support of…

That's the metaphor to a T: at one time it was necessary to have an operator, until technology reached a point where buttons would suffice. In the future, script production and revision will still occur via committee, but the actual writing will not be done by humans.

I think keeping the committee was partially to avoid accidentally cutting off the stream of new writers.

If you can't get started doing grunt work writing you have to get started somewhere.

Re: Unions work

#76

Post by [deleted] »

benwerd wrote: post #68
nonethewiser wrote: post #53

I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.

That's why these are two forces: the interests of the business, and the interests of the workers. The idea is that they negotiate and compromise, and a good balance is found.

[deleted]

Re: Unions work

#77

Post by Spivak »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #72
braza wrote: post #43

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements…

Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.

> Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.?

Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the calculus at all when compared to workers who will work for single digit dollars a day.

Re: Unions work

#78

Post by toomuchtodo »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #74
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4 Day Week movement is to not take a pay cut, as workers are already productive enough (and that productivity can be maintained in a shorter work week, proven by several pilot/trials [1]). It's incredibly disingenuous for folks opposed to a 4 day week to say workers need to be even more productive [2] to obtain a shorter work week to maintain existing pay (at least in the US, where pay has been stagnant for almos…

Does a nurse working a 32 hour week monitor as many patients as one who works a 40 hour week? Does a grocery store worker who stocks shelves stock as many cans of food and boxes of slop in 32 hours as he does in 40? It is absurd, disingenuous, and even sinister to suggest that their productivity is equal with a reduced week. There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of distinct jobs where this is the truth. There…

For sure, we're going to have differing opinions based on life experiences, data consumption, and the resulting mental models. Outcomes are going to be driven by voting (politically) and unions. With union support being at the highest in history in the US, along with rapid electorate turnover (4M 18 year olds aging into voting each year, ~2M 55+ annual age out rate of voters), I'm hopeful workers will be able to secure a greater piece of the value they generate (through a combination of wages continuing to be pushed up and a shorter work week) at the cost of those currently holding substantial assets and wealth. There will be some inflation, that is inevitable due to the US freeloading on substantially underpaid labor for so long it has become accustomed to it (the federal minimum wage is laughably at $7.25/hr for example [1]) as well as structural demographic compression of the working age cohort. Lots of macro unwinding that is going to be painful due to the poor economic choices made over the last half century. Importantly, most people under 30 didn't have a hand in shaping these poor choices.

> If one truly wanted to help those who are hurting the worst, this is completely ass-backwards. It seems designed to make those who are already comfortable a little more so.

Very broadly speaking, the very wealthy have enough [2], and can make due with less. Tax them more if necessary [3]. Those hurting the worst are hurting because of greed and selfishness of a minority, not workers who have been taking it on the chin for decades. But, most unfortunately, the mental model that gets you wealthy heavily discounts luck and overemphasizes individual exceptionalism [4] [5], so these folks aren't self aware enough to come to the conclusion on their own, leaving collective action and the legal/political system as the most likely path to success.

Again, the productivity already exists. Where do you think all of this accumulated wealth is coming from?

[1] https://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/ ("The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, many states and localities have raised their own minimum wages. Explore the map to see how these rapidly changing laws differ across the country. Values as of July 1, 2023")

[2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... ("2023: Richest 1% bag nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years")

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 ("Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: 'This is not rocket science'")

[4] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol... ("The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized")

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37419334

Re: Unions work

#79

Post by nonethewiser »

benwerd wrote: post #68
nonethewiser wrote: post #53

I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.

That's why these are two forces: the interests of the business, and the interests of the workers. The idea is that they negotiate and compromise, and a good balance is found.

I agree with the additional clarification that the interest of the business is somewhat the interest of the workers (and vice-versa).

My point is there exist many things that workers might want for their immediate benefit but shouldn't want because ultimately it will be bad for them via an unhealthy business and/or economy.

Re: Unions work

#80

Post by dismalpedigree »

openthc wrote: post #61
timbit42 wrote: post #4

They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.

Any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?

Get together with other employees and buy it from the owners.
Post reply on HN