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

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

#51

Post by Jcampuzano2 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #44

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon. Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall. Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles compe…

It’s not about just being a top worker though. It’s about showing up ready to do an honest days work for an honest days pay. Not going above and beyond, but being reasonable about the fact that at the end of the day it’s work and things need to get done for everyone involved to put food on the table. Instead it becomes a cat and mouse game of figuring out how to game the rules and scam as many hours as possible while…

I don't disagree and thats likely the opinion of the vast majority of people. Thats why i say that unions and collective bargaining are most likely to be a net benefit overall.

It just hurts competition among those who have an internal motivation to go above and beyond. They will feel they are being held back and either lose motivation or go somewhere where they feel a union isn't holding them back.

And the downside of that is companies losing their most hardworking/motivated people.

Edit: the above was written before the edit adding the cat and mouse game.

Added: I agree as well that when implemented wrong unions have pretty annoying affects on peoples motivation or work ethic. People who are qualified for things aren't allowed to do things outside of their explicit job description/contract. Etc. Some argue this is good, others argue it just wastes tons of time and hurts progress.

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

#52

Post by throwaway27448 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #47

throwaway27448 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'a worth noting shareholders also provide no value. We need to fix both ends of the equation to move forward as a society.

they literally provide value Shareholders are investors who give valuable resources to business

We certainly don't need private investment to develop an economy. I, for one, am tired of supporting lazy parasites whose only contribution is money, and who don't know how to invest it for the rest of us. It's a completely broken model.

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

#53

Post by miltonlost » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #47

throwaway27448 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'a worth noting shareholders also provide no value. We need to fix both ends of the equation to move forward as a society.

they literally provide value Shareholders are investors who give valuable resources to business

No, they provide capital. It's the workers who provide value to the company.

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

#54

Post by skeeter2020 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

miltonlost wrote: post #13

bhoops wrote: 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.

this really depends on the industry and union. In some sectors they hold zero power (software development) and in other they have it locked up (auto manufacturing)

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

#55

Post by bombcar » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #44

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon. Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall. Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles compe…

It’s not about just being a top worker though. It’s about showing up ready to do an honest days work for an honest days pay. Not going above and beyond, but being reasonable about the fact that at the end of the day it’s work and things need to get done for everyone involved to put food on the table. Instead it becomes a cat and mouse game of figuring out how to game the rules and scam as many hours as possible while…

If the unions were more really trade guilds and policed themselves people would have much higher respect for them, I feel.

And some unions practically are this, where the union negotiates rates and benefits, but the "customer" still gets to decide which particular people he hires (and so the "bad apples" never get any reliable business) - which I've seen in AV production, etc.

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

#56

Post by WarmWash » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #25

aliasxneo wrote: post #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…

Similar life experiences. Like the idea of unions - especially how they are explained at a textbook level. I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all. But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work. Not my thing. At all. One should be able to be rewarded for hard work and productivity when you are expending mor…

>But US unions seem to exist nearly exclusively to protect people who don’t want to work.

They don't exist for that reason, but their inevitable ground state is that.

The fundamental and intractable problem with any form of socialization is that it naturally attracts free riders. The idea doesn't have a balanced equilibrium, so it's either logistically/bureaucratically heavy or always being pulled towards collapse.

Everyone who starts these systems has pure intentions, and the initial members tend to be dedicated too. But over time it will either naturally decay, or turn into the thing it was trying to fight.

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

#57

Post by Balvarez » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

aliasxneo wrote: post #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…

Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into the dirt, I'm likely right. Also let me be clear, I'm not attacking your comment but what sort of comment would be most-likely amplified by anti-union forces.

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

#58

Post by Erem » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

infecto wrote: post #35

wat10000 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discourse around unions is so weird. A bunch of people form an organization so that they can work together to sell stuff. When they're selling widgets, or other people's labor, we call those people "management" and we call their organization "business" and it's the standard way of doing things. When they're selling their own labor, we call it a "union" and suddenly people have Opinions about whether they're reall…

I don’t think it’s weird. Why should a union be a protected class that you cannot fire? If a company can find people to work cheaper than what the union offers why should they have to continue to employ union workers? Pros/Cons to everything. I generally sit into the stance that the free movement of labor is one of the things the US gets right.

They’re not a protected class that you can’t fire, unless the company signs a contract to that effect with the vendor selling them labor (the union)

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

#59

Post by chii » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #50

chii wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

equality of outcome is unnecessary, only equality of opportunity is required.

So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?

why isnt it fair?

Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).

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

#60

Post by xur17 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:57 PM UTC

Balvarez wrote: post #57

aliasxneo wrote: post #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…

Your probably a normal guy making a comment in good faith, but I can't help but think this is the exact sort of dark marketing that I would do if I was an anti union commenter/marketer. Attack the vague made up values of union members because you can't attack the fact that large companies have been anti-worker for awhile and most people believe that. I'll also add onto here that if this comment gets down voted into t…

Maybe, but I have heard the exact same experience from my Dad and others that have worked with unions. It unfortunately seems to attract people trying to take advantage of the system. Personally if I were offered similar jobs, one with a union, one without, I'd take the one without.