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

As unions decline, inequality rises

epi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#271

Post by scruple »

nightski wrote: post #266
scarmig wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument for the meme: Labor unions don't challenge the core structure of capitalism; even when they're working, they mostly serve to give a slightly bigger piece of the pie to workers. And in practice, they are hijacked by a certain bureaucratic caste that mostly optimizes for stability and self perpetuation. They become integrated with state sponsorship, which will never allow for substantive change. For instance,…

Nothing is stopping anyone from forming a worker coop in the US. Yet few do. Have you ever considered this?

I have, yes, and I've gone as far as finding friends and former colleagues who would be interested in joining me. Unfortunately health insurance is tied to employment in this country and we all have families. The uncertainty in that regard leaves it a non-starter for people in our situation. At least for the time being.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#272

Post by ResearchCode »

whiddershins wrote: post #214
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…

This is an intrinsically Marxist framing. Even if inequality is rising, so is wealth overall. That’s what Marx misestimated, although it wasn’t his most grievous error. Poor people in the United States are far richer than rich people of 150 years ago. I am personally willing to accept the he existence of some billionaires if that’s the price we pay for all this wonderful ness.

Compare to 30 years ago instead. Wealth in terms of being able to buy property is decreasing in many countries, which can be more significant than any increased ability to buy consumer gadgets (that will spy on you). And the countries with less wealth inequality don't in principle have less wealthy common people.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#273

Post by scruple »

moneywoes wrote: post #198
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…

My worry is bringing unions in the US tech industry will just accelerate off shoring especially with super fast growing companies like Deel What are your thoughts?

Outsourcing technical work comes in waves. I've seen it up-close-and-personal 3 times. It's worked once and the magic that went into making it work (one of the founders moved back to his home country and started a consultancy that was contracted by the original business) in that specific instance isn't something that is easily replicated.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#274

Post by awinder »

haberman wrote: post #210
awinder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By:

1. Not labeling people who disagree with you as “part of a professional managerial class” / people who don’t want to work (propaganda) 2. Actually citing personal experience (just saying you have personal experience isn’t a debate/argument)

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#275

Post by Buttons840 »

As unions grow they begin to resemble that which they were meant to counter-balance. I've wondered, if a subgroup of union members are unhappy, can they organize? Can they form a union within the union?

For example, if my workplace has an exclusive contract with one union, and me and my coworkers (who are all union members) don't believe the union is representing us, can we organize to take collective action against both the union and our actual employer?

I known little about unions, so feel free to explain the basics if you need.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#276

Post by eggsmediumrare »

missedthecue wrote: post #217
pmoriarty wrote: post #7

Many people don't want equality... especially those who see themselves as superior.

I want society to get richer. I want poor people (in all nations including China, India, and Vietnam) to earn more money. This is not the same thing as wanting equality. In that sense, no I do not support economic equality. Jeff Bezos owning 10% of Amazon worth $X billion does not effect my life in any way. If he owned 50% or 0.001%, instead my life would still be the same. I'm not sure why I need to be upset about t…

The actual number is not upsetting, it's that 1) he achieved that number by exploiting workers (pee in a bottle, stay in the warehouse during a tornado, et cetera) and 2) not paying taxes.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#277

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dzink wrote: post #25

World War II was a much bigger reason and a cause for this. There is a problem with correlation vs causation in the article’s logic. I’d argue the unions were a bi-product of a historically rare moment in time vs cause of equality. The market bust and global world war increased taxation, demand for workers, and value of each worker in the early 40s. Much more importantly, for a few decades after WWII all other global…

> The Union-driven higher costs of manufacturing also drove outsourcing

Gousing prices are the cause of higher cause of manufacturing. I am not sure how noone is talking that a worker in the west cannot compete eith a worker in a developing country when his rent is 10x higher. Then peolle have the guts to blame unions.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#278

Post by dehrmann »

winkeltripel wrote: post #186
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…

I don't think you quite understand how the unions work. -in most cases, the employer is able to fire with cause. The union keeps the employer from using layoffs as a weapon. - pay scales reward loyalty and keeps the workplace stable. - without the union, you have almost no bargaining power. The union usually gets a better rate for everyone than any one person could have negotiated. This is in fact the point of collec…

> pay scales reward loyalty and keeps the workplace stable.

The tech industry has arguably developed quickly because people move around a lot, taking best practices with them. Workplace stability might appear locally great, but it hurts the industry as a whole.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#279

Post by klipt »

Swizec wrote: post #220
subpixel wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a hundred years ago, a bunch of immigrants from places like Germany or Spain or Italy could arrive in New England (including New York City), perform manual labor, provide for their families on one income, and pool their additional money to _build whole buildings_ as social or fraternal clubs. That really puts things into perspective for me.

"provide for their families" was also a much lower standard than it is now. Back then having a good life (for immigrants at least) didn't mean a large house in the suburbs and 3 cars, it meant an entire family of 5 sharing 1 bedroom and walking everywhere. A pair of jeans was a multi generational investment. If your family could afford one bicycle, you were living large. This was unimaginable wealth compared to what…

Being able to "walk everywhere" is itself a kind of luxury nowadays, because there are limited walkable cities in the US and they have all become very expensive.

It's often actually much cheaper to live somewhere in the suburbs where you can't walk everywhere, because everything is designed around cars.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#280

Post by ClumsyPilot »

tbrownaw wrote: post #240
7sidedmarble wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So, things like "functioning markets are good" and "price-fixing is bad"?

Slave markets were functional. Feudalism was functional. The market for drugs and organs are functional.

Lets try tougher ones - are markets captured by cartels functional? Does OPEC inhibit free market or are they free market in action?

When tech companies create anti-poaching agreement to supress wages, is that functional?

Post reply on HN