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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 230 posts

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

#111

Post by robtherobber »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #78
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…

> Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore. I think people tend to fixate on the worker-to-worker differences inside of unions. Yes, t…

> On paper, meritocracy sounds great.

In reality, meritocracy was a slur word. It was coined in 1956 to describe a farcically unequal state that no one in their right mind would want to live in: https://archive.discoversociety.org/2018/10/02/meritocracy-a...

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

#112

Post by nielsbot »

mothballed wrote: post #62
wat10000 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't exclusive contracts pretty common in business? There's a big difference between monopolizing the supply to a single customer, which happens all the time, and monopolizing an entire market.

Yes if it's just a voluntary contract I see nothing sinister. If some employees form a union that's not sinister. If the company signs a contract with them that's not sinister. But if some employees want a union and that automatically means they've forced the other employees to join rather than allowing the other employees to pick to work outside the union, or automatically means the company is involuntarily bound to…

unions don’t work unless everyone’s in them.

it’s a free country—individuals have freedom to just work at a non union shop.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

missedthecue wrote: post #98
Muromec wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For once, the union is one of the rare in-groups that are very easy to join and actually benefit their members

The problem is that they tend to benefit their members in a zero sum way. For example the LIRR wants a double digit raise not in exchange for hitting targets on on-time arrivals or some other metric. They want it or they strike and hold the community hostage. It bothers me that there's no value exchange it's just take take take, and ultimately at my expense.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by nielsbot »

mothballed wrote: post #82
wat10000 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Involuntarily binding the company to the contract would be bad, I agree. But what's wrong with forcing the other employees to join to keep their jobs? That is fundamentally a requirement on the company, that they only hire people in the union. And that's no different from any other sort of exclusive contract. If a restaurant has an exclusive contract with Coke, is it sinister to say that Pepsi employees can't supply…

I'm saying suppose some employees decide to form a union. And the company doesn't consent to sign an exclusive contract. As I understand it there are unions advocating that workers that didn't agree to a union still have to be bound to it anyway. It's my understanding in some states in the US it's possible a worker will be forced to join a union if a certain number of other workers want a union, even if neither the w…

how much were your dues? and you were getting $7.25/hr?

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

#115

Post by desmoulins »

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…

I had similar experiences as a former unionized worker. Unions definitely solve some problems, but they're not a panacea, and a lot of company BS just gets replaced by an equivalent amount of union BS. The most miserable people I've ever worked with were people at my former union with 10+ years on the job (I remember one lady was in the process of suing the company AND the union, lol); they couldn't leave without losing all their seniority and benefits, couldn't be fired, but still had a long way to go before retirement.

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

#116

Post by nielsbot »

izacus wrote: post #69
superxpro12 wrote: post #3

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

I wonder if that's actually true - unionbusting is mostly an emotional issue for leaders and owners so I wonder if there's any calculation involved. I've seen corporate HR got to insane (illegal) lengths to "stick it" to people trying to unionize - to the point of being severely fined. So I wonder if anyone actually calculated financials here.

there’s also a dam breaking effect. if unionization starts kicking off again, that can be contagious. so companies are incentivized to “nip it in the bud”

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

#117

Post by AnimalMuppet »

missedthecue wrote: post #98
Muromec wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For once, the union is one of the rare in-groups that are very easy to join and actually benefit their members

The problem is that they tend to benefit their members in a zero sum way. For example the LIRR wants a double digit raise not in exchange for hitting targets on on-time arrivals or some other metric. They want it or they strike and hold the community hostage. It bothers me that there's no value exchange it's just take take take, and ultimately at my expense.

Worse, public sector unions are ultimately at my expense in a way that I can't even fix by not buying the product, since they're taking it from my taxes.

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

#118

Post by luizfzs »

Unions only exist because there is a huge power imbalance between employer and employee. They attempt to balance the field.

In doing so, companies may lose their leverage and are forced to actually negotiate. This is often painted as blackmailing, but it's the same thing they do to employees. Bosses often go with "we're doing you a favor. If you don't want this job, I have a replacement for you".

When their power and leverage vanishes, they see it as being blackmailed, when in reality they are just being forced to play a fair game.

This thread has several stories of unions "keeping lazy workers", etc. I can't deny your experiences. But what about the thousands of companies that violate Labor Laws? Why are we not talking about these stories? e.g. https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition...

When you push people hard enough, they will fight back. In fighting back, the corporations that had the leverage will feel attacked by losing their power.

While 68% of workers approve unions (https://news.gallup.com/poll/694472/labor-union-approval-rel...) there are only 9% of them that actually belong to a union. That's a huge discrepancy. It can be explained by the immense difficulty in forming one due to illegal corporation practices and laws that make it difficult.

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

#120

Post by oldnetguy »

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…

My wife is in a Union and she has been getting info that has nothing to do with her job. Some unions cross pollinate with whatever cause someone in the union is interested in. She wants a raise but can't because of collective bargaining, but the union isn't doing anything about that. However they are talking about other political issues. So her dues are not helping her but whatever political issue is being promoted.
Post reply on HN