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

211–220 of 230 posts

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

#211

Post by robtherobber »

Jensson wrote: post #195
robtherobber wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Meritocracy is still a slur word by the left, that never changed, the left doesn't like meritocracy and the right likes it. So a left winger writing about the horrors of meritocracy doesn't mean that meritocracy is bad.

I find the left/right approach altogether ridiculous for this, it's but a spurious oversimplification which usually shows lack of understanding for the topic discussed. In this particular case, it also shows that you didn't bother to read what meritocracy actually is, since you claim, against the very inventor of the word, that it's a good thing without producing any evidence or reasoning.

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

#212

Post by blitzar »

infecto wrote: post #123
nielsbot wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can fire union members you can’t fire people for organizing.

To be clear you can fire union members but not because they are in a union, support a union or organizing to be in a union. Very similar to a protected class.

To be clear you can fire humans but not because they are humans, support humans or organizing to be humans. Very similar to a protected class.

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

#213

Post by thrance »

baron816 wrote: post #40
fmbb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have the lawmakers on their side.

Who does? The unions definitely have lawmakers on their side.

Who do you think has more power in the US today, oligarchs and corporations or workers and their unions?

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

#214

Post by thrance »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #11
indoordin0saur wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

China? Doesn't strike me as a particularly good country to work in.

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

#215

Post by thrance »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #176
superxpro12 wrote: post #3

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

If you think unions fight exclusively for “a fair salary” you are not engaging with reality.

Better a corrupt union than no union at all. The Gilded Age was not a pleasant time for workers.

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

#216

Post by thrance »

slibhb wrote: post #132
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> must compensate that worker with two days’ pay The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications. > My view is that -- with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad, and worth fighting. There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that some are dysfunctional, but making a claim li…

> The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications. No, it's just a scam, and anyone should be able to see that. It's like saying I get 2 days pay if I have to write go in addition to typescript. And 3 days pay if I have to write java. > There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that…

And what do you think would happen if unions were made illegal? Employers would just play nice? It's crazy how far propaganda has gone in the US, where the average worker is longing for a return to the Gildee Age.

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

#218

Post by virgildotcodes »

WarmWash wrote: post #170
virgildotcodes wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 9 men hunt and 1 man eats free, so the 9 men are carrying the weight of the 1. Updated the quote to the historically accurate 99 vs 1. > This system is inherently unstable and unsustainable. The countries cited are extremely stable. Arguably far more stable than the US. That said, we can bring in the rest of Western Europe if 5 countries aren't enough of an example. They have union participation rates between 10% a…

Europe is in a borderline catastrophic economic situation. I wouldn't use them as an example, because it ultimately just illustrates my point more. Lots of people are aware of Europes excellent quaility of life, far far fewer (but thankfully including Euro leaders) are aware of the existential financial situation and forecasts. Europe was supposed to have a vibrant tech scene and a globally competitive technology sta…

EU debt to GDP is ~80% avg across member states, US is ~123%.

US CPI 3.8% as of April, EU HICP 3.2% as of April.

IMF projects 2.3% growth US vs 1.1% growth EU in 2026.

Not sure I would say the EU is in a borderline catastrophic economic situation and the US is not?

If both are in catastrophic situations (it seems one could fairly make that assessment in either case), then again we’re back to “all societies are unstable, would we like to be pragmatic and compassionate during our brief moment of stability or vindictive and self destructive?”

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

#219

Post by infecto »

blitzar wrote: post #212
infecto wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear you can fire union members but not because they are in a union, support a union or organizing to be in a union. Very similar to a protected class.

To be clear you can fire humans but not because they are humans, support humans or organizing to be humans. Very similar to a protected class.

[flagged]

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

#220

Post by blitzar »

infecto wrote: post #219
blitzar wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear you can fire humans but not because they are humans, support humans or organizing to be humans. Very similar to a protected class.

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN