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

211–220 of 237 posts

Re: Unions work

#211

Post by supertimor »

VancouverMan wrote: post #88
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…

The impact of unionization on the customers/consumers should be considered, too. My experiences dealing with unionized workforces in Canada as a customer/consumer have generally not been good at all. Such workers often exhibit tremendous inefficiency, a lack of care, and disinterest. This results in low-quality service/work, and a bad experience for the customers/consumers involved. This is particularly noticeable wh…

I mean, Hollywood unions have been a thing since the 1930’s, pretty much since the inception of the “Talkies.” So any loss in quality that you claim will have not been due to the unions.

In fact, the most likely culprit of any loss in quality is likely do to the studios and producers who have cut down on budgets, prep time, filming time frames and staffing which makes the existing workers have to constantly scramble to make a good product. And because of the staffing shortages, workers don’t have the same opportunities to learn the ropes from more experienced workers, so the ladder has effectively been broken. The unions are actively fighting the studios on these points because they care about the future of the industry. Without the union backing up these workers, the loss in quality would have likely been even worse than it is now.

Not every union is the same. Hollywood union members are incredibly hardworking, regularly working 60-90 hours a week in very physical and stressful jobs. Many of these workers are highly skilled and take their job very seriously. And they would be much worse off without the union advocating for them.

Bad customer experiences happen in all type of businesses regardless of union status. That shouldn’t distract us from the fact that many people that would otherwise be exploited would be far worse off if they didn’t have a union to represent them.

Re: Unions work

#212

Post by supertimor »

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…

A nurse is a pretty bad example to use for this. Nurses often already only work 3-4 days a week (doing 10 to 12 hour shifts). They’re already on a 4 day week (or 3 day).

Re: Unions work

#213

Post by heavyset_go »

Jensson wrote: post #203
phone8675309 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually do…

> What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the…

It's not either or. You can be paid for labor, get equity and profit sharing at the same time.

Re: Unions work

#214

Post by heavyset_go »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #153
phone8675309 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agi…

For one thing, berserk cops could actually be fired if it weren't for their union.

Look at how the justice system, regulators and legislators treat cops who abuse their power.

The reasons cops are allowed to beat and murder with impunity extends beyond a singular entity.

Re: Unions work

#215

Post by heavyset_go »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #129
specialist wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what ways would non-union government employees be better?

Presumably the idea is they would be motivated to do a good job or else be fired. Whereas now they are immune from firing unless doing something egregious. I don’t really agree with that though as the real reason is the government has no competition. If McDonalds does a bad job at service you will go to Burger King. But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?

> But if the DMV does a bad job well tough cookies what are you going to move to Sweden?

You engage in the democratic processes to effect change, versus the "choice" between what other non-democratic entities are willing to give you.

Re: Unions work

#216

Post by tim333 »

xnx wrote: post #2

I'm conflicted about unions, but it would be truly amazing if they brought us the 4-day work-week the way they got the 8-hour workday and weekends.

Regulation on work hours, holidays and the like is better handled by government legislation on the whole. I mean it works ok in France for example.

Re: Unions work

#217

Post by tim333 »

Unions can work but can have downsides as well. I mean take Detroit which used to be a booming place and the world center of the motor industry. In the good times when they were making a lot of money the unions negotiated high wages, conditions etc. Then when things turned down a bit, instead of being able to cut that companies just moved elsewhere and it's been downhill ever since.

Re: Unions work

#218

Post by adamrezich »

heavyset_go wrote: post #213
Jensson wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the…

It's not either or. You can be paid for labor, get equity and profit sharing at the same time.

what possible incentive would the owner of a company have to give workers equity/profit sharing while keeping all of the risk for himself?

Re: Unions work

#219

Post by Woshiwuja »

mikecoles wrote: post #102
Woshiwuja wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Not having them is a huge problem. In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind, wonder why in America that doesnt happen

Americans are smart enough and strong enough to not have to hide behind a 'powerful union'. Unions are nothing more than legalized mob. The are worthless for productivity and a disaster for those who are eager to work.

What does this even mean? Smart and strong enough to get abused by the Company? lmao. Talk about being fucked so much you start to like it

Re: Unions work

#220

Post by Woshiwuja »

em-bee wrote: post #57
Woshiwuja wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are fundamental in every line of work. Not having them is a huge problem. In Europe there isnt a single job without an union behind, wonder why in America that doesnt happen

the easiest difference to notice is that in the US creating a union inside a company needs to be voted on, whereas eg in germany a council elected by employees is mandated for any company with more than 50 employees. unions are not created in the company but exist outside and any employee is free to join them at any time. if a company has enough union members they can take action there. which means growth of unions i…

Same in Italy. It baffles me that in the great democracy (/s) people can't come together to get fair treatment from employers. sad.
Post reply on HN