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

Unions work

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Unions work

#201

Post by em-bee »

bko wrote: post #94
braza wrote: post #43

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements…

I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions based on an observable set of factors like how long someone has been there and what education and training they have. But anyone that's worked in the workforce knows this is very limited. People aren't the same. Sometimes someone has been in an org forever but…

The rigidness also extends to other factors. For instance, working at a bank we were not allowed to move our monitor to another desk. That was a union job. You had to put in a work order have someone show up eventually and move the monitor for you and get paid some fee. It introduces rigidity and inefficiency and there are constant turf wars.

this is a very US specific problem. i don't believe any other country in the world allows unions to get away with such nonsense.

Re: Unions work

#202

Post by tehjoker »

bko wrote: post #94
braza wrote: post #43

Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements…

I disagree that unions work. It's mainly due to the fact that it treats everyone more or less the same based on some formula. For instance, they make decisions based on an observable set of factors like how long someone has been there and what education and training they have. But anyone that's worked in the workforce knows this is very limited. People aren't the same. Sometimes someone has been in an org forever but…

Unions are democracies. If they are rigid, that's because that's what the majority wants. If they are flexible, likewise.

Police unions are basically the worst example of a union. Cops are not "workers". They are on the side of capital, policing its boundaries (literally) that's why they are so rotten!

Re: Unions work

#203

Post by Jensson »

phone8675309 wrote: post #191
adamrezich wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. this works until your workers start a…

> as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually do…

> What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits.

So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the blame of that failure and need to pay at least some of the losses?

Workers prefer fixed salaries instead of revenue share to avoid risk. This is a normal way to do things, workers don't want to share profits and losses, they want a fixed salary. Moving to a profit share model would not make workers happy at all.

Re: Unions work

#204

Post by rexpop »

specialist wrote: post #192
rexpop wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we haven't "digitized and automated blue collar work." Not by the a long shot. We've still got vast billions toiling in our service.

What's the skill level required for those billions of jobs?

Skill level? It's the same opportunity cost as any career.

Re: Unions work

#205

Post by snapplebobapple »

The only correct statement in this article is that there needs to be a counterbalance to corporate power and even that is only correct if I give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean market power and not a corporation's right to run itself as shareholders see fit (and fail into bankruptcy if that way is a bad idea).

A correct heading for this article would be "Unions also abuse market power for the benefit of their members at the cost of dead weight loss to society"

The correct counter balance to corporate power is strong antitrust law that is enforced (similar but not quite to the extreme of how it was pre Rehnquist supreme court).

Re: Unions work

#206

Post by treis »

neon_electro wrote: post #182
treis wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because after 15 years the balance of power has tipped from those who sold out to those that were sold.

Ok, so can you explain how that shift in the balance of power does NOT invalidate your parent point?

Because it's still the union doing what's best for union members. The only thing that's changed is what's best for the union members.

Re: Unions work

#208

Post by autoexec »

treis wrote: post #206
neon_electro wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so can you explain how that shift in the balance of power does NOT invalidate your parent point?

Because it's still the union doing what's best for union members. The only thing that's changed is what's best for the union members.

unions should work for their members. If a union isn't working for the interests of the members, that union's leadership needs to be replaced. Corporations are only concerned with increasing profit. They aren't interested in protecting workers from being exploited. Some corporations were (and I assume still are) outright criminal organizations. Let corporations worry about protecting their bottom line, and let unions worry about protecting their members.

Re: Unions work

#209

Post by autoexec »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #121
andrei_says_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.

Inasmuch as unions increase the cost of labor, employers will have a stronger incentive to replace it with capital. It’s one reason we haven’t seen much advancement (until recently!) in automated food preparation (vis-a-vis industrial factories)—the labor has been very cheap.

Any human worker will increase the cost of labor compared to automation. Even at slave wages, automation wins every single time. Employers are, and long have been, 100% incentivized to automate the instant it becomes technologically feasible.

Research and advancement in automated food preparation has never stopped. They were working on the problem in the 1970s with automatic vending machines, Fast food in particular has been salivating at thought of throwing out human workers for ages. (see for example: https://www.deseret.com/2003/8/11/19740875/mcdonald-s-flips-... and https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mcdonalds-testi... and https://www.cnet.com/culture/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-scre...)

The very second that the tech is ready and reliable enough, it's a done deal. No worker will ever be as cheap as a robot slave.

Re: Unions work

#210

Post by autoexec »

sershe wrote: post #136
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that criteria, you have ruled out siding with any form of organization that humans have ever created. Businesses, governments, churches, sports teams and probably even Girl Scout troops all have a history of committing violence when it serves their aims.

For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation. Throughout their history, unions would always be maximally exclusionary to the degree it wouldn't backfire in terms of PR (and sometimes beyond that, e.g. Cesar Chavez conducting anti-immigrant border raids), because that is their whole point.

> For most organizations, this behavior is incidental to their incentives. For unions, it's a primary motivation.

For unions, it has only ever been a means to an end (with that end being things like having days off, and safe working conditions) Corporations on the other hand throw human lives away because it makes them money, and making money is all they care about. That's why the bodies of children were being mangled in the machinery of the industrial revolution and it's why children are still dying in garment factory disasters today.

Post reply on HN