As unions decline, inequality rises • Hacker News Board

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#201

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

faitswulff wrote: post #4

Zeyka wrote: post #3

I will never understand how some working class Americans can be against unions, maybe they just see themselves as embarrassed millionaires that would want to crush their workers to squeeze money out of them? It's probably my European brain, but I cannot understand how someone, say Jerry, 60 year old factory worker from idaho, can be against unions...

Ironically you’re being downvoted by the same folks who would benefit from unions. American Twitter employees, for instance, would have done a lot better with European labor protections. European Twitter employees probably have a sizable comeuppance on the horizon.

Why are European wages so low? Why aren't their unions extracting more meaningful pay? Why do the non-unionized US workers make so much more money?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#202

Post by mgraf1 » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #108

lisper wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two big factors: 1. American capitalists have waged a very effective propaganda campaign against unions and 2. American unions have had a history of corruption. (Or maybe I just think that because I've been taken in by the propaganda campaign.)

as an American, my casual observation is that "real, political Leftists in Unions of America" were pushed out by any means (media,legal pressure,illegal intimidation and harassment), leaving the far-Right shady people to run them (literally Mafia in many locations, and with the Teamsters). This is a political trade-off paralleling other anti-Communist countries. USA Americans do not have a real impression of the horr…

I'm curious what you mean when you say "leaving the far-Right shady people to run them (literally Mafia in many locations, and with the Teamsters)". How are you defining "far-right" in this context?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#203

Post by option » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

we should stop worrying about inequality and instead fixate on these two metrics: (1) how well off are the poorest and those unable to work and (2) how well off is the middle class

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#204

Post by leereeves » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

underbrush wrote: post #195

wallawe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is your take, you're not being honest about the downsides of unions. Here is a list of reasons for not wanting a union[1]: - I want my underperforming colleagues to be fired quickly. It's unfair and annoying that laggards are protected and free riding off their colleagues' (my) effort, and it leads to ineffective orgs. - I don't want seniority or rank to be rewarded. It's unfair to young people (me) who are m…

Take your reasons, which are really more opinions, and insert "free speech" instead of "unions" (after the appropriate changes) and you might understand why people would disagree.

How does "free speech" reward seniority, protect underperforming colleagues, prevent negotiating individually, etc?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#205

Post by hintymad » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

I think unions in private companies have value. The unions at least know they can’t demand too much or their companies will be out of business. On the other hand, I don’t get unions in public institutions: the government is unlikely to go out of business, so what is possibly the check and balance of the unions?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#206

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

jtolmar wrote: post #69

formercoder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t understand the push for white collar tech employees to be in unions. It’s my understanding that in most union jobs, compensation and benefits are strictly based on time in role, not performance. I try and excel in my role and others are less interested in doing so. I should be promoted faster and compensated higher.

A union is a democratically-run tool. Every tech employee I talk to hates the idea of compensation being based purely on time in role, why would they democratically vote for that to be the rule?

Because not every rule is up for vote. Ex: Majority of Americans want weed federally legal. America is a democracy. Why is that not the law? It's not up for vote.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#207

Post by 7sidedmarble » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

tbrownaw wrote: post #184

susanasj wrote: post #142

I think this is a good article for tech workers to read to provide perspective on our place in the tech economy (particularly Americans): https://organizing.work/2020/12/there-is-something-missing-f... particularly this part: > Early on in my own career in the industry, I felt guilty about making a “good” salary. Why did I deserve to make more money than a teacher or a nurse? Of course, I don’t — they deserve a lot m…

"deserve" doesn't exist. What does exist is "what price makes the market clear". Assigned moral worth or whatever "deserve" is trying to get at has nothing to do with economics.

Why shouldn't we have ethical opinions about the economy?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#208

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #77

dantheman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are anti-immigrant.

Do you have any current data on that? I think it was true of the "Reagan Democrat" variety of union worker in the 1980s, but I suspect it's an outdated stereotype now. For example, SEIU, one of America's largest unions, represents a lot of immigrants and is strongly pro-immigrant: https://www.seiu.org/justice-for-immigrants/

It's not really true any longer, but it was at one point. The head of the AFL-CIO admits here that unions were strongly anti immigration for decades. Only in the past few years have they changed their official opinion.

https://www.npr.org/2013/02/05/171175054/how-the-labor-movem...

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#209

Post by deepsquirrelnet » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

ditonal wrote: post #164

ceres wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All great points. To add: As someone who's worked blue collar jobs, it is all too common for unions to protect assholes from getting fired. This leads to a hostile work environment created by the "high seniority" workers. Something I don't like whenever these discussions come up is the condescending tone, from white collar workers. "Don't these poor people know what's good for them????" Working class people are capab…

Poor people? I think rich techies are crazy - or rather, badly misinformed- not to start a union. Exhibit A of poorly informed: grandparent poster seriously thinking he has more individual bargaining power against trillion dollar corporations than a collective bargaining agreement would. Exhibit B: grandparent poster thinking collective bargaining _must_ entail many aspects like seniority based compensation that are…

> Read the emails between Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin w.r.t high tech class action lawsuit. Read about Google hiring union busting consultant firms.

Worse still is that these firms have been caught collectively bargaining against workers through illegal secretive non-compete clauses. Wage suppression has been going on for years, even while these companies have been at the very top of thriving businesses.

It’s simply not a question of affordability. These companies did it because they could.

I’d also like to point out that much of the union activity of a hundred years ago was also about poor working conditions, and not just compensation. Much of that was quelled by increasing government regulations that protected workers against exploitation. Is the government adequately performing this job?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#210

Post by haberman » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #59

thepasswordis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You’re: 1. Not actually detailing your life experience 2. Repeating tropes and stawmanning arguments that others aren’t making 3. Framing people you don’t agree with as “PMC people”, i.e. you’re not engaging with their arguments Your final sentence applies in spades to how you’re arguing across the thread. Ridiculous.

Please tell me, how is one supposed to engage with the "argument" that their personal experience and resulting belief is a "propaganda driven falsehood." That's not an argument, it is pure name calling, and doesn't even make sense as this person seems to be basing their beliefs on direct experience from their own professional life.