Live data from Hacker News

US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

theguardian.com

11–20 of 230 posts

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#11

Because its ultimately cheaper to suppress unions than it is to pay the workers the fair salary.

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.

What's the alternative (no unions) like?

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#13
post #12

Not sure if that is a bad thing - labor unions can have too much power. Its not as if the employers agree to everything that they will go away.

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

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#14
post #6

Considering the annual revenue of Fortune 500 companies is near 20 Trillion, that is a much smaller amount than expected.

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...

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#15

Because its ultimately cheaper to suppress unions than it is to pay the workers the fair salary.

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.

You're not pro-union if you still spout anti-union propaganda. You spent more words arguing against unions than you did for them. I'd say your first part of the sentence is probably more of a rhetorical trick than anything close to true

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#16
post #6

Considering the annual revenue of Fortune 500 companies is near 20 Trillion, that is a much smaller amount than expected.

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.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#17

Because its ultimately cheaper to suppress unions than it is to pay the workers the fair salary.

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.

Instead of repeating vapid arguments from the past 30 years designed to disincline people from joining unions, maybe you could look outside of your own borders and realize that it's not an inherent property of unions. Inherent to the US and your extremely unhealthy relationship with work, maybe.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#18
I have pretty mixed feelings on unions. I spent most of my early career as a non-union blue collar worker embedded into mixed teams (union + non-union members). The general experience I walked away with was that unions seemed to attract the worst employees. I remember one individual in particular who, having worked with him for two years, never once actually did any work. He was actually one of my first mentors and I vividly recall riding in the truck with him as he explained "the game" to me about how to make good money while basically doing no work, and how it was "unfortunate" I couldn't play because I was "working for the man."

This might not seem so annoying, but in the Bay Area where I worked, the unions had lobbied to secure work that could _only_ be done by union members. For example, I was a controls technician, and I legally couldn't wire a 12v controller because it was considered protected work. Which means I had to try to convince the same people who were not incentivized to be productive to help me.

So yeah, after a few years of that, I left with a pretty sour taste in my mouth. That being said, philosophically I like the idea of unions. I've had my own share of experiences being abused by "the man." The retirement plans offered in particular were always alluring. But, despite being invited to join, I never felt compelled because I just couldn't find myself enjoying working with the people they attracted.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#19
post #12

Not sure if that is a bad thing - labor unions can have too much power. Its not as if the employers agree to everything that they will go away.

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.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#20

Because its ultimately cheaper to suppress unions than it is to pay the workers the fair salary.

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.
Post reply on HN