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

Unionbusters (1986)

texasmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#41

Post by kmeisthax »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #34
toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always shocked by the mental model that despises labor power but is okay with the bug in our socioeconomic system where ultra wealthy people and corporations are allowed to wield such unelected power. Humans are strange.

I suppose it's just the temporarily embarrassed millionaire mentality.

Temporarily embarrassed aristocrats, in this case.

"Temporarily embarrassed millionaire" refers to working-class people who oppose progressive liberal policies because they think they might have some future windfall that puts them in the capitalist class.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#42

Post by 1oooqooq »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #32

Background: I completed my union IBEW apprenticeship in Texas. Comment on article: I read books more than I work (often!), and this article was wayyyyyyy tooooooo longgggggggggg . The point of effective communication is to be just concise enough to still retain your readership (I stopped reading a little less than half way). Comment on unions: I am currently supporting UAW's current push to unionize Chattanooga's Vol…

i can summarize the article in numbers.

total steel in the ship: 4,600ton.

union buster guy charged $46,000 and would pay their guys $12/h. labor would amount to half contact costs.

union would pay $17/h plus $6.50 for union managed benefits (medical, retirement). unsure total cost to client.

on both workers, insurances must be paid. but that's only ever mentioned to raise the union labor cost (from $23 to $32)

on the end union delivered the job at a loss for $37,600. workers got the full 23.5/h.

union buster workers wasted a day off work and transportation for no pay.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#43

Post by feedforward »

changoplatanero wrote: post #7

I'm definitely in favor of breaking up the dockworkers/longshormans unions. I don't see why we should let a small group of people hold the whole economy hostage just to enrich themselves.

> I don't see why we should let a small group of people hold the whole economy hostage just to enrich themselves.

So you're against capitalism

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#44

Post by dylan604 »

keybored wrote: post #5

I love unions in American fictional media. The Wire seasons two is centered around the dockworkers who take bribes and are arguing about how corrupt they should be (I’m biased since it’s the most boring season by far). Ozark features a union on the periphery which is introduced by a man carjacking a truck and kneecaping the driver with a shotgun. Can’t wait to see what’s up next.

I love that season. The most boring season to me is the 5th season where they jumped the shark and the stupid journo. I really like the "Greek" and his crew, especially Vandos. His line about "why can't they just kick the ball with their feet" cracks me up with his confusion over basketball.

But why do you seem to have this thing that union members are above committing crimes like those depicted you've called out? We know that unions are heavily influenced by organized crime. Why do you think that even if the union isn't controlled by OC, why would you think individual members wouldn't be susceptible to working side hustles?

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#45

Post by dylan604 »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #32

Background: I completed my union IBEW apprenticeship in Texas. Comment on article: I read books more than I work (often!), and this article was wayyyyyyy tooooooo longgggggggggg . The point of effective communication is to be just concise enough to still retain your readership (I stopped reading a little less than half way). Comment on unions: I am currently supporting UAW's current push to unionize Chattanooga's Vol…

The Texas Monthly is not known for short concise prose. The pint of some effective communication is to be concise, some is to provide as much detail as possible. More and more I see comments like this that assume that everyone wants a bullet point list as the entire article like they can only handle tweet length content. Some people enjoy the longer prose providing the hows/whens/wheres/whys of how the points were arrived upon.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#46

Post by aerostable_slug »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #13
harimau777 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we don't want a small group of people to hold the economy hostage to enrich themselves, then we should be looking at corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

I am always shocked by the mental model that despises labor power but is okay with the bug in our socioeconomic system where ultra wealthy people and corporations are allowed to wield such unelected power. Humans are strange.

It's perhaps not as shocking if one reflects upon the negative experiences individuals have with each.

I have personally experienced multiple negative experiences in my personal and professional lives directly related to labor unions, but Jeff Bezos has had nearly zero identifiable impact on my life. Possible exception: a Jeff Bezos donation is paying for a nearby shelter for homeless families.

I'm not necessarily opposed to collective bargaining, but I can give you a litany of crap I've had to deal with over the years because of unions, itemized with i's dotted and t's crossed, and I simply cannot do the same for the supposedly awful wealth inequality I live with every day.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#47

Post by aerostable_slug »

48864w6ui wrote: post #18

I love how Reagan openly busted US unions with one hand while secretly funding Polish unions with the other.

If you imagine trade unions are innately destructive to their host, then that's perfectly consistent.

Of course, I imagine even Reagan saw a bit more nuance to things.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#48

Post by orochimaaru »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #39
Nifty3929 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if unions actually rewarded blue collar employees worse, why would the corporate executives be rallying so hard with propaganda against organized labor?!" Because the world isn't a war between workers and employers. It's not a zero-sum game. Businesses create value by turning less-valuable inputs from society (fundamentally, labor) into more-valuable outputs to society (cars, haircuts, etc). It's a positive-sum game…

> Because the world isn't a war between workers and employers. It's not a zero-sum game. > Business leaders care about creating more outputs to society. How do you square these ideas with record profits and record executive compensation, juxtaposed with decades of wage stagnation and the dramatically expanding wealth gap? That gap now has 1% of the population owning over 30.6% of the wealth. In the context of this di…

Wasn’t that always the case? There may have been a small post world war 2 blip where the distribution was slightly flatter in the United States. But in the past that may have been worse (as in a few kings and nobles owning most of the wealth).

Executive compensation is an issue. And it is regularly brought up when unions are mentioned. But I doubt cutting executive compensation even by 75% would result in the amount of money to satisfy union demands on healthcare, job security and retirement.

Your problem is the stock market punishes companies that don’t have cash flow. Union demands ebb that cash flow and no amount of executive compensation reduction will make up for it. Keep in mind I’m specifically talking executives, not founders. Founders own shares in their companies and that cannot be considered compensation.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#49

Post by keybored »

dylan604 wrote: post #44
keybored wrote: post #5

I love unions in American fictional media. The Wire seasons two is centered around the dockworkers who take bribes and are arguing about how corrupt they should be (I’m biased since it’s the most boring season by far). Ozark features a union on the periphery which is introduced by a man carjacking a truck and kneecaping the driver with a shotgun. Can’t wait to see what’s up next.

I love that season. The most boring season to me is the 5th season where they jumped the shark and the stupid journo. I really like the "Greek" and his crew, especially Vandos. His line about "why can't they just kick the ball with their feet" cracks me up with his confusion over basketball. But why do you seem to have this thing that union members are above committing crimes like those depicted you've called out? We…

I don’t think that unions or union members are above that. I think it’s funny that they are consistently portrayed that way in the media.

Re: Unionbusters (1986)

#50

Post by dylan604 »

keybored wrote: post #49
dylan604 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that season. The most boring season to me is the 5th season where they jumped the shark and the stupid journo. I really like the "Greek" and his crew, especially Vandos. His line about "why can't they just kick the ball with their feet" cracks me up with his confusion over basketball. But why do you seem to have this thing that union members are above committing crimes like those depicted you've called out? We…

I don’t think that unions or union members are above that. I think it’s funny that they are consistently portrayed that way in the media.

and why might that be? because your normal day to day person that pays their dues, goes to work, gets paid is a boring story. there's no news there. there's no there there. union member gets caught committing a crime while using their position in the union or with the protection of the union is news and plenty of people find that interesting. nobody cares about some start up, but tell the story of how the startup became a rocketship to the moon because their founder created a bro culture that rewarded shady practices of using the information they collect on their users to try to make those reporting on the shady practices look bad, then you have a much more interesting story. There's never been a biopic made about the founders of Lyft, like for Uber. Never was a biopic made about Tom and MySpace like there was about the Zuck.
Post reply on HN