261–270 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest tool a union has is striking. If you can’t strike you’re not really a union.
I don't think that's a useful definition. Laws may require employers from negotiating everything from working hours to safety with unions. Some countries have laws that require unions have voting power in company boards etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If something is positive for both sides then I think the market will eventually adopt it on its own." In Denmark we (by law) all have 5 weeks of holiday per year (besides public holidays), paid sick leave, 37 hour work week, paid maternity care (m/f), reasonable notice of termination, reasonable rules for work environment, etc. All because of our unions. How is it in the US?
Those very generous working conditions, and the mind set that it comes from and creates, I am convinced, is also why Denmark does not have an Apple, Tesla, Google, Nvidia, or SpaceX, and why the AI revolution is heavily based on the US. I’m not dinging you for it. I am US based ex EU (NL) myself, and have lived under both systems enough time to have experienced the difference. Countries and individuals can make choic…
I wonder why US companies keep pulling stunts like this despite the data showing little negative impact of unionization to overall productivity nor company survival. It looks to be a purely dogmatic ego trip where somehow blind loyalty is demanded even when it's not actually necessary.
If it made no difference why would employees bother? It does make a negative difference for employers with potentially higher costs and lower flexibility over time.
I’m in the HN minority that actually likes Apple’s products and business model. I like the consistency the closed ecosystem brings, I like the product design, I like the vertical integration. But this union stuff pisses me off to no end. Apple has high margins and is generally ahead of competitors in things like sustainability and supplier responsibility (yes yes not perfect, I just said ahead). It would be 100% in l…
It's always hard arguing the counterfactual, but do you really believe that Apple would be the Apple you love if their employees were unionized? Put another way, and before you downvote me to oblivion, what are the most innovative tech companies that have unions?
Who cares? That's a stupid question, we can't possibly know and either way we can't change the past. What we CAN do is change how things are now and implement a union with Apple as it is today. Why postulate about the upbringing of the company and how things could have been different ideologically when that's not what the discussion is about? People just want job security, protection from abuse by their employer, and reasonably consistent raises to at least match inflation.
I wonder why US companies keep pulling stunts like this despite the data showing little negative impact of unionization to overall productivity nor company survival. It looks to be a purely dogmatic ego trip where somehow blind loyalty is demanded even when it's not actually necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are they if they're not "labor"? Certainly a police officer considers their upcoming shift as "work". Certainly the police could not function without on-duty officers on patrol and at the precinct? I hate to be so blunt on this site, but what is the flippin point of these sort of definitional and semantic arguments? What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations. I legitimately don'…
> What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations How does enhanced clarity muddy the waters? Police are not labor, not practically or legally. Likewise, a CEO is not labor either, even though the CEO is apt to be an employee who shows up to work just like anyone else. Having a job that you go to work at is not what defines labor in this context. Considering all people who do work to be t…
I wonder why US companies keep pulling stunts like this despite the data showing little negative impact of unionization to overall productivity nor company survival. It looks to be a purely dogmatic ego trip where somehow blind loyalty is demanded even when it's not actually necessary.
Nobody wants to admit it, but businesses are deeply ideological. Not in the typical sense, but they have lots of strongly held irrational beliefs that are contradictory. They are not rational actors.
The next morning the union rep met with me to deliver a letter from HR to sign saying I resigned - that was all that was in it. The union rep and mgmt knew about the 'your religious problem' verbal warning I got from that meeting with a manager - the other person at that meeting was writing something down and didn't hear it and when I asked the manager what he meant by that and he clammed up. Smart move really.
So if anything the after work relationship with the union reps who could still act on my behalf helped out. Other people there were not comfortable to interact with me on anything work related at that point. Notable is that I'm not religious in any way, but was insistent that documenting work was a necessity. That was while working for a state university.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What are you trying to gain, other than muddying the waters of conversations How does enhanced clarity muddy the waters? Police are not labor, not practically or legally. Likewise, a CEO is not labor either, even though the CEO is apt to be an employee who shows up to work just like anyone else. Having a job that you go to work at is not what defines labor in this context. Considering all people who do work to be t…
How is a police officer like a CEO, and not like a factory line worker? It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).
Both the police and CEOs are incentivized to protect the interest of capitalists. That is a primary duty of their job. Labor, on the other hand, challenges the interests of capitalists.
> It seems very clear that they are more the latter (labor) than the former (admin).
Clear in what way? Where there are people there are people problems. Indeed, police often have associations to help with people problems, hell even the capitalists sometimes have unions (e.g. farmers), but these are not labor unions. If this is what you are talking about, there is nothing clear about it – it is all quite arbitrary who gets to associate and who doesn't, but is also beyond the topic at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With even a basic history of labor power under capitalism it's clear that police are one of the greatest threats to organozed workers due to their role enforcing the capitalist status quo. Don't expect a wolf in sheeps' clothing to baa.
In the US police are often members of a union, and collaborate with the strikers, causing companies to hire professional security companies. Honestly, I have a hard time feeling much compassion for companies where the workforce unionizes: most of the time unionization is a relic of terrible management behavior over a substantial period of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if an happier, more productive employee benefits the company then the market will sort it out by itself I don't think this argument in particular stands well against reality. The market is generally driven by players with concentrated power and it's very likely the interests of those players will align creating an even more one sided power imbalance. People's preferences are low entropy. Things that are in the inte…
> I don't think this argument in particular stands well against reality I think it does. I mentioned the salaries and perks offered by tech companies. I could also mention Henry Ford. If something benefits the company then they will do it, and if it works it will naturally spread. > Things that are in the interest of individuals rarely "sort themselves out" without some intervention I didn't write "in the interest of…
Short-term, the demands that trade unions make do indeed make workers more productive.
But long-term, the company owners (and here I of course mean actors who hold significant amount of concentrated shares, not your average stockholder) and top management may see this as only the first step down the road where they do not wish to go. By this line of thinking, if you allow unions to establish a foothold with those basic demands, they will use that as a beachhead to make further and further demands that favor labor interests over those of the capital, with the end goal being a worker-owned business (i.e. socialism) which excludes the people who currently own the capital entirely. Naturally, they do see it as a threat to themselves - it is very much intended to be! And so they are willing to forgo some things that would be more profitable short-term.