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

61–70 of 479 posts

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#61

Post by Aunche »

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...

A lot of people have had bad experience with unions. Often times, it's only people with high seniority that see the most benefit from unions. This is why the railroad unions negotiated for more pay instead of paid sick days. Pension payouts are based on the average of the highest 60 paying months. Senior employees who are due to retire in a few years just need bear a few more tough years to enjoy their significantly fatter pensions.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#62

Post by bombolo »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #54
bombolo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, like the people who say they are better than their coworkers and say unions would make them compensated less… USA propaganda succeeded… they don't even realise the enemy is their CEO.

Why would the CEO be my enemy? A specific CEO maybe but that is a very broad claim to make.

> Why would the CEO be my enemy?

I studied some basic economics.

The goal for a player seems to be to obtain the maximum, giving the least.

For his very role, the CEO will pay you the least amount he can get away with. Ok he won't think of a few dollars or cents, because it's not worth to think about it… but when you negotiate your salary he would give you a negative raise if he could get away with it. And during normal work days he wants you to work as much as possible.

Of course a good CEO understands that working 20h today means that you won't do a good job tomorrow… but the long term goal is that.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#63

Post by Devasta »

mannyv wrote: post #22

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They hav…

There are some things, like political campaigns, where absolute inequality does matter. One man one vote may be true in theory, but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#64

Post by kneebonian »

bombolo wrote: post #51
mannyv wrote: post #22

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They hav…

So you are saying there is nothing wrong with a country where a few own everything and everyone else doesn't even have access to healthcare? > In fact, people try to flee countries who implement that sort of resource allocation. Yes, rich people, lol. People who GET access to things like housing and healthcare remain.

I feel like you are mischarecterizing OPs argument. His argument is that rather than focus on inequality we should focus on increasing everyone's standard of living overall.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#65

Post by throw0101c »

formercoder wrote: post #11
faitswulff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> It’s my understanding that in most union jobs, compensation and benefits are strictly based on time in role, not performance.

That is one structure, and it probably was predominant in the past because unions were historically in factories where workers were more interchangeable and had set tasks at a production line station.

Another is more 'guild-like': Jane Smith who is Waitress #2, and Tom Cruise who plays Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible, are both part of the same union/guild, but one is able to negotiate a much higher salary. But they have the same 'base' level of protection with regards to working conditions, pension, health care, etc.

Certainly Tom Cruise can go above and beyond those 'base' levels, but the union/guild simply provides a floor which everyone is entitled to.

There's no reason why a union contract could not negotiate things like working conditions, health/child care, pensions/retirement funds, etc, but leave salaries out of the collective agreement. Or perhaps have pay bands, with retention/performance bonuses that are out side of the scope of the agreement, and are 100% discretionary to the company: everyone gets a floor, but there's no ceiling.

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#67

Post by [deleted] »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #54
bombolo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, like the people who say they are better than their coworkers and say unions would make them compensated less… USA propaganda succeeded… they don't even realise the enemy is their CEO.

Why would the CEO be my enemy? A specific CEO maybe but that is a very broad claim to make.

[deleted]

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#68

Post by throwaway6734 »

pjmlp wrote: post #36
throwaway6734 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But American tech companies would be even less likely to be created in the first place under European labor laws

Spotify, SAP, Skype, Unity, Sitecore, OutSystems, Bayer, Pfizer, Nokia, Ericson, Vodafone.... Managed just fine.

Do you think tech companies are more likely to come out of Europe or the US?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#69

Post by jtolmar »

formercoder wrote: post #11
faitswulff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Re: As unions decline, inequality rises

#70

Post by jccalhoun »

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...

Because all they see is "that union is taking money out of my pay check!" and they don't see the positives.

And there actually are bad unions. I worked in a casino and out union was a non-striking union so even if the casino gave use some shitty contract we weren't able to strike. So what was the point?

Post reply on HN