As a child of two news people I grew up hearing union horror stories, such as typesetters in a newspaper that spend almost all day playing cards because their job has gone but the union still forces the paper to keep them on.
Then I married my wife, who worked in a union at a college library, and I learned I had only heard one side of the story. Initially we had a few interesting, and heated, debates about unions. Over time though I have slowly come over to the idea that unions as a concept, and in many implementations, are a good thing.
I still think some unions wind up getting too much power and abuse that power, but they are generally a good check in a world that resembles more and more the world of the Cyberpunk 2020 game I used to play [1].
Curiously, this is the second time I've been reminded of Cyberpunk 2020 this month. The first time was the 'Satoshi' reveal last week, which brought up memories of Hal Finney [2]. I always equated with Spider Murphy [3], the top digital rights activist/info broker/info breaker in Cyberpunk 2020.
Unions can be bad or corrupt or too large in exactly the same way companies can be bad or corrupt or too large. The existence of such bad actors however does not mean that the very concept of companies or unions is bad.
For companies there is competition. If a company is significantly more corrupt than its competitors, then it may not be competitive (unless it has some other significant advantage) and perhaps will go bankrupt. That is another reason why monopolies and oligopolies are bad (as this anti-corruption mechanism does not work for them).
Although it is in principle possible to have multiple competing unions, it is often forbidden (either by law or union contract) and many companies are anyways small enough market.
My only question with unions is: what checks and balances will be in place this time around to prevent unions from:
- Rampant corruption (i.e. Teamsters in the 60s is the most egregious example, but probably even a lot of current unions are rife with corruption)
- Racketeering (i.e. like what happened when Theranos tried to move offices)
- Protecting bad/lazy workers (i.e. impossible-to-fire poor performing employees that do nothing yet collect a paycheck every week)
- Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting employees (i.e. "Sorry, we won't let you automate X; too many people would lose jobs")
I see how unions benefit workers in the case of terrible corporations that exploit workers, but as a small business owner I'm afraid a union would morph into a parasite that hinders the business and engages in all sorts of undesirable activity (in the case of industry-wide unions).
Like I read a few years ago at some convention in NYC some organization couldn't get their booth up and running because they weren't allowed to plug in their own equipment because "that's union work" and they had to wait for a card-carrying union member to come plug in their TV or something ridiculous.
It's much like a HOA or any other political organization. The check and balance is YOU. If you are involved in the Union, and other workers are involved, there is seldom a problem. If like the current U.S. political landscape, people abdicate their responsibilities because it's harder and more work, you end up with less than ideal people in the leadership roles.
I was in a condo with like 8 units. Got in the HOA board, because it wasn't that hard (3/8 owners get membership). I could pretty much stop stupid stiff.
Now let's say I work for a hypothetical Walmart union. 1 million members or whatever. What can I do to check and balance anything? How can I bet anything except a tool to be used for various warring factions to extract more money from each other.
When unions were illegal, they could only survive by being in the interests of the workers they represent. The ones that became legal were the most willing to cooperate with capital, and in turn were given structural advantages against more radical unions.
For example, in many shops there is only one union. It is not difficult to see how that would lead to perverse incentives on the union's part.
I can ask you in turn: What checks and balanges are in place to prevent businesses from:
- Rampant corruption
- Protecting bad/lazy managers
- Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting profits
- Manipulating national politics for their benefit
>I can ask you in turn: What checks and balanges are in place to prevent businesses from:
A business is trying to make money. The first 2 out of the 4 points directly harm their profit motive, the 3rd and 4th are what companies should be doing (it's not great, but it fits their profit motive).
To my understanding, unions arise where some form of abuse is systemic. I.e., as an employer, I can rely on my employees not giving me the middle finger and just walking out since they are unlikely to be treated any better anywhere else. From the employee's perspective, the market doesn't work for whatever reason.
See the recent talk about unionizing people who work in the games industry, for example.
What happens to unions after their original purpose for existence has been fulfilled, is another story. Some might turn into vehicles for illegal activities, as some individuals move to take advantage of the existing power structure.
Nevertheless, their existence should be seen as a symptom that something isn't right. An employer can probably avoid the unionizing of their workforce by addressing the underlying problem.
They can also avoid or postpone it by striking down even harder on their workforce. Like so many fascist regimes have shown, this can be particularly effective in the short-term.
I think the main checks and balances should come from the union members themselves, however, often times it's the "loudest voice" that wins over.
It's difficult as an individual to make an argument against striking for increased pay for example, even if you believe the long-term impact of that decision will ultimately be worse (i.e. it could lead to increasing the speed with which the employer investigates automation to stop the impacts of you striking).
Am almost wholeheartedly in favour of organised labour, but am not convinced most unions have the right organisation (although something is often better than nothing in the case of workers rights).
> - Rampant corruption (i.e. Teamsters in the 60s is the most egregious example, but probably even a lot of current unions are rife with corruption)
> - Racketeering (i.e. like what happened when Theranos tried to move offices)
RICO act which pretty much destroyed unions in the US... the ones which were left and were pretty corrupt.
> - Protecting bad/lazy workers (i.e. impossible-to-fire poor performing employees that do nothing yet collect a paycheck every week)
Union contracts or collective bargaining agreements lay out these sorts of things, and they have to be negotiated in that contract.
> - Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting employees (i.e. "Sorry, we won't let you automate X; too many people would lose jobs")
If all companies were set up with unions then they would all oppose altogether which would not effect the competitiveness of a company... but the entire industry. So such a move would have to be an industry move. This then makes a key industry beholden to not just the shareholders but also the employees when the government goes to set policies for that industry.
Imagine a hypothetical metro system where the drivers were unionised. Imagine driverless trains were possible from a technology and safety perspective. And imagine they were only planned for new lines, and future automation was guaranteed to happen below the rate of driver retirement, so no union members would lose their jobs.
Would you expect the union to oppose such automation? If not, what should happen if they did?
> My only question with unions is: what checks and balances will be in place this time around to prevent unions from:
What checks and balances are in place to stop corporate entities that happen to not be unions from screwing their workers, screwing their employees, and screwing their community?
In a world of regulatory capture, pretty much the only weapon anybody else has is "we'll turn off your money spigot," yeah?
> What checks and balances are in place to stop corporate entities that happen to not be unions from screwing their workers, screwing their employees, and screwing their community?
At least in the tech industry: dead sea effect. If you screw your workers, they'll get up and leave and go work for your competitor. Companies don't want this.
"Like I read a few years ago at some convention in NYC some organization couldn't get their booth up and running because they weren't allowed to plug in their own equipment because "that's union work" and they had to wait for a card-carrying union member to come plug in their TV or something ridiculous."
How does one determine who's lazy and under performing and not? There is not a good qualitative way to evaluate this. Most of the time it just boils down to do you like the person or not.
Secondly, how do you address the racism in Unions even now? Within the last year multiple African American Union workers were complaining about racism within the Union and they were largely ignored by the Union.
I remember when I used to work at XYZ Company I would have to wait for weeks to have a union employee move my stuff from desk to desk (even a desk that was 1 desk over) when I could've done it myself in minutes. Why do I need a Union worker for something I can do myself? Why does a company need to spend $600 for something I can do myself in less than an hour for free.
Maybe in the US journalism and entertainment fields people can get off more easily with a Union as their jobs are somewhat shielded from the threat of offshoring. That is not the case in engineering and manufacturing. Unions are not for every industry and these things should be done at the Local, State and Federal level so everyone can benefit. The government is supposed to be counter balance to business. The government is outsourcing their job to Unions.
> How does one determine who's lazy and under performing and not? There is not a good qualitative way to evaluate this. Most of the time it just boils down to do you like the person or not.
Um, no. There is a massive difference between "lazy" and "I don't like them". I may not like them because they're lazy, but they are not at all the same thing. The problem is, if you're trying to get rid of a lazy employee, and they have a union (or any other lawyer) trying to protect them, then the lawyer wants to paint "lazy" as being as non-objective as possible, so it becomes something they can't be fired for.
My only question with corporations is: what checks and balances will be in place this time around to prevent corporations from:
-Rampant corruption: (i.e. funding anti-global warming, pro-tobacco propaganda science, etc. Bribing governments. Trashing the environment.)
-Racketeering (i.e. Missouri & Kansas suing opioid manufactures under RICO, rent-seeking behavior/aspirations exhibited by nearly every major industry today)
-Protecting bad/lazy CEOs, Officers & Board Members (i.e. golden parachutes, do-nothing Board Seats filled by nepotism)
-Blocking strategic decisions in the name of providing value to shareholders (i.e. Stock buybacks over R&D, laying off experienced engineers in favor of cheap juniors, etc.)
...
So what if you have to wait a bit to have some one hook up your A/V equipment? Corporations generate their own byzantine bureaucracy without any help from unions (try getting a upfront quote for a medical procedure sometime). What undesirable activity would industry-wide unions do? Prevent IT outsourcing? Force considerations in international trade relations? Claw back some profits for workers instead of shareholders? Slow down the frantic rush to turn every industry into a duopoly? Put a check on C-Suite compensation? Hold a general strike the next time there is a push to get us into a war?
I look at the shenanigans going on at WeWork and others, and I start to think maybe capital shouldn't be trusted to the Capitalists. Re-Unionization is really the only way I see to reign things in before the next generations turn to full-fledged-capital-S Socialism.
We should all agree that organized labor is a net-positive for most industries first and then recognize their downsides and mitigate them.
We don't ask "Should we have government? What should we do to minimize corruption?" We recognize the need for government, then work to make it better.
Furthermore, like most regulations, I would hope that the power of union against corporate would scale with the size of the business - that not every profession would be a guild, but that the larger and more powerful a business to a region, the more power the union has against it. This would be to avoid the last example you cited.
Edit: Lest I draw the ire of mods, I am tired of getting downvoted for a good faith discussion relevant to the linked article. If you have a problem with a statement, please reply constructively.
Unions are just monopolies. I don't really have a huge problem with that - as long as they are not given the backing of state power. Having a law that enforces closed shops is not something I'd support.
That and government sector unions. Those things are toxic because the unions end up supporting providing political support for the people they're employed by i.e. that's like me and my co-workers voting on how much we'll be paid.
> Having a law that enforces closed shops is not something I'd support.
AFAIK it is the other way. Closed-shop may be a result of contract freedom between a powerful union and a company (and then it is enforced as any other contract). While union laws often limits content of union contracts, e.g. forbids closed-shop. That is why you do not see closed-shop in Europe (with generally stronger union laws).
Uber etc. raise millions and billions in the idea that if they scale enough they can capture a market and monetize it once captured. A market monopoly.
Why can't industry workers do the same? Once software has eaten the world, what's to stop software people monetizing the employment market they have captured?
It is when they're voting on how much a third party (I.e. you) will be required to pay them. See: the Chicago, California, and general us public pension crisis.
I have a tough time with this one myself. My father was a police officer and, as he rose through the ranks, he had to deal with police officer union corruption at every level - he can tell you horror story after horror story of the problems driven by the police officer’s union. On the other hand, now that I’m working myself, in the very non-unionized field of computer programming, I can at least see why people began to realize that collective bargaining was so important.
There are a bunch of reasons why police unions are somewhat of a special case. Enumerating them can get dragged into a lot of disagreements, but its important to remember they're an outlier and not the common-case for labor unions.
Competition is good, and we always want a choice of where to shop. I imagine the same goes for unions. Is there anti-monopoly and antitrust law around unions? E.g. protecting consumers against there being only one union for widget makers. I would guess that unions would be less controversial with a healthy ecosystem of competition on both the employer and labor sides, but I don't know much about unions.
It seems like that kind of defeats the purpose of the union: to create a unified bargaining entity for the workers. If there are two or three unions for the same type of work, then their negotiation power isn't as strong.
I imagine it as a spectrum. One union has all sorts of power. Two or three unions have less, but still have way way more bargaining power than one union per worker, which we have today. There should be a balance.
Unions are like companies and other organizations of humans. Some are fantastic, some are terrible, with most in between. It's unfortunate so many push to brand them all with one description for ideological reasons.
> I saw unions as a balancing act to corporate interests, offering protections to lower-skilled workers who, without collective action, didn’t have much power over their bosses. [...] But not high-skilled industries like digital media, where workers could, on their own, use their skill sets as leverage over their bosses.
This is every dismissive comment about unions on HN ever, right here.
No. There is nothing about “higher-skill” workers that means management interests or values automatically align with theirs, or that collective power isn’t greater than individual at higher levels of compensation.
The results we’ve seen when such workers realise this (see Googlers more-or-less ept attempts to change management policy) is the test for this. A strong union would stand them in much better stead.
No... it's not true. In the end I have heard employees be terminated for all sorts of frivolous reasons. Unless you are a very senior developer, the chances of you being replaceable especially at a well funded company are very high... In fact all businesses are set up to make all their employees replaceable.
> Isn’t that just smart? Why would I, the hypothetical investor risking my money on a venture, tie that money to a specific employee? That’s putting all of your eggs in one basket.
Similarly, why would as a hypothetical employee work without the protection of a union?
> 1) Payscale -- a professional is in a better position to have a substantial emergency fund, to get through a sudden layoff.
It would be higher yet with unions.
> 2) Demand -- Some professional skills are also in high demand, which makes changing employers easier.
Easier, yes, but not easy.
> 3) Upward and lateral mobility -- In a union shop, mobility is often rigidly defined by seniority, whereas in many professional services, the employee can be more in control of their career. Contrast this to something like the airline pilots union, where a pilot has to start over as a rookey if they change airlines. When I started my last job, I was able to negotiate more weeks PTO because of my years of experience in the field.
Yes except in tech you are an old man by 40, so yes enjoy your 5-year senior developer status... And enjoy your retirement at 40. It's a mythology that you are better off in tech because of the lack of unions because of the super high salaries, etc., which are only to be found in a small segment of the industry.
> even in a company that genuinely does try to be the best in digital media, things can slip through the cracks, and a bad manager can make a world of difference. I had always gotten along very well with my bosses at Vox, but that could change in one corporate reshuffling. I also started to worry about the future: What if, in a very volatile journalism industry, I’m laid off, or Vox is sold off to another company? Who’s to say the next owners would be as good as the current ones?
Consider that Hollywood is unionised even though the pay differential between an extra and a star is far greater than in tech. They can make it work, why can’t we?
Readit News
Then I married my wife, who worked in a union at a college library, and I learned I had only heard one side of the story. Initially we had a few interesting, and heated, debates about unions. Over time though I have slowly come over to the idea that unions as a concept, and in many implementations, are a good thing.
I still think some unions wind up getting too much power and abuse that power, but they are generally a good check in a world that resembles more and more the world of the Cyberpunk 2020 game I used to play [1].
Curiously, this is the second time I've been reminded of Cyberpunk 2020 this month. The first time was the 'Satoshi' reveal last week, which brought up memories of Hal Finney [2]. I always equated with Spider Murphy [3], the top digital rights activist/info broker/info breaker in Cyberpunk 2020.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2020
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist...
[3] https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Spider_Murphy
Although it is in principle possible to have multiple competing unions, it is often forbidden (either by law or union contract) and many companies are anyways small enough market.
- Rampant corruption (i.e. Teamsters in the 60s is the most egregious example, but probably even a lot of current unions are rife with corruption)
- Racketeering (i.e. like what happened when Theranos tried to move offices)
- Protecting bad/lazy workers (i.e. impossible-to-fire poor performing employees that do nothing yet collect a paycheck every week)
- Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting employees (i.e. "Sorry, we won't let you automate X; too many people would lose jobs")
I see how unions benefit workers in the case of terrible corporations that exploit workers, but as a small business owner I'm afraid a union would morph into a parasite that hinders the business and engages in all sorts of undesirable activity (in the case of industry-wide unions).
Like I read a few years ago at some convention in NYC some organization couldn't get their booth up and running because they weren't allowed to plug in their own equipment because "that's union work" and they had to wait for a card-carrying union member to come plug in their TV or something ridiculous.
Now let's say I work for a hypothetical Walmart union. 1 million members or whatever. What can I do to check and balance anything? How can I bet anything except a tool to be used for various warring factions to extract more money from each other.
OP was asking what he can do as a small business owner.
For example, in many shops there is only one union. It is not difficult to see how that would lead to perverse incentives on the union's part.
I can ask you in turn: What checks and balanges are in place to prevent businesses from:
- Rampant corruption
- Protecting bad/lazy managers
- Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting profits
- Manipulating national politics for their benefit
A business is trying to make money. The first 2 out of the 4 points directly harm their profit motive, the 3rd and 4th are what companies should be doing (it's not great, but it fits their profit motive).
The same can be asked for elected representatives in government.
See "Democracy or Oligarchy? Models of Union Governance in the UK, Germany and US":
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2995297
See the recent talk about unionizing people who work in the games industry, for example.
What happens to unions after their original purpose for existence has been fulfilled, is another story. Some might turn into vehicles for illegal activities, as some individuals move to take advantage of the existing power structure.
Nevertheless, their existence should be seen as a symptom that something isn't right. An employer can probably avoid the unionizing of their workforce by addressing the underlying problem.
They can also avoid or postpone it by striking down even harder on their workforce. Like so many fascist regimes have shown, this can be particularly effective in the short-term.
It's difficult as an individual to make an argument against striking for increased pay for example, even if you believe the long-term impact of that decision will ultimately be worse (i.e. it could lead to increasing the speed with which the employer investigates automation to stop the impacts of you striking).
Am almost wholeheartedly in favour of organised labour, but am not convinced most unions have the right organisation (although something is often better than nothing in the case of workers rights).
> - Racketeering (i.e. like what happened when Theranos tried to move offices)
RICO act which pretty much destroyed unions in the US... the ones which were left and were pretty corrupt.
> - Protecting bad/lazy workers (i.e. impossible-to-fire poor performing employees that do nothing yet collect a paycheck every week)
Union contracts or collective bargaining agreements lay out these sorts of things, and they have to be negotiated in that contract.
> - Blocking strategic decisions in the name of protecting employees (i.e. "Sorry, we won't let you automate X; too many people would lose jobs")
If all companies were set up with unions then they would all oppose altogether which would not effect the competitiveness of a company... but the entire industry. So such a move would have to be an industry move. This then makes a key industry beholden to not just the shareholders but also the employees when the government goes to set policies for that industry.
Would you expect the union to oppose such automation? If not, what should happen if they did?
What checks and balances are in place to stop corporate entities that happen to not be unions from screwing their workers, screwing their employees, and screwing their community?
In a world of regulatory capture, pretty much the only weapon anybody else has is "we'll turn off your money spigot," yeah?
At least in the tech industry: dead sea effect. If you screw your workers, they'll get up and leave and go work for your competitor. Companies don't want this.
That sounds almost as bad as an open-plan office.
Secondly, how do you address the racism in Unions even now? Within the last year multiple African American Union workers were complaining about racism within the Union and they were largely ignored by the Union.
I remember when I used to work at XYZ Company I would have to wait for weeks to have a union employee move my stuff from desk to desk (even a desk that was 1 desk over) when I could've done it myself in minutes. Why do I need a Union worker for something I can do myself? Why does a company need to spend $600 for something I can do myself in less than an hour for free.
Maybe in the US journalism and entertainment fields people can get off more easily with a Union as their jobs are somewhat shielded from the threat of offshoring. That is not the case in engineering and manufacturing. Unions are not for every industry and these things should be done at the Local, State and Federal level so everyone can benefit. The government is supposed to be counter balance to business. The government is outsourcing their job to Unions.
Um, no. There is a massive difference between "lazy" and "I don't like them". I may not like them because they're lazy, but they are not at all the same thing. The problem is, if you're trying to get rid of a lazy employee, and they have a union (or any other lawyer) trying to protect them, then the lawyer wants to paint "lazy" as being as non-objective as possible, so it becomes something they can't be fired for.
-Rampant corruption: (i.e. funding anti-global warming, pro-tobacco propaganda science, etc. Bribing governments. Trashing the environment.)
-Racketeering (i.e. Missouri & Kansas suing opioid manufactures under RICO, rent-seeking behavior/aspirations exhibited by nearly every major industry today)
-Protecting bad/lazy CEOs, Officers & Board Members (i.e. golden parachutes, do-nothing Board Seats filled by nepotism)
-Blocking strategic decisions in the name of providing value to shareholders (i.e. Stock buybacks over R&D, laying off experienced engineers in favor of cheap juniors, etc.)
...
So what if you have to wait a bit to have some one hook up your A/V equipment? Corporations generate their own byzantine bureaucracy without any help from unions (try getting a upfront quote for a medical procedure sometime). What undesirable activity would industry-wide unions do? Prevent IT outsourcing? Force considerations in international trade relations? Claw back some profits for workers instead of shareholders? Slow down the frantic rush to turn every industry into a duopoly? Put a check on C-Suite compensation? Hold a general strike the next time there is a push to get us into a war?
I look at the shenanigans going on at WeWork and others, and I start to think maybe capital shouldn't be trusted to the Capitalists. Re-Unionization is really the only way I see to reign things in before the next generations turn to full-fledged-capital-S Socialism.
We don't ask "Should we have government? What should we do to minimize corruption?" We recognize the need for government, then work to make it better.
Furthermore, like most regulations, I would hope that the power of union against corporate would scale with the size of the business - that not every profession would be a guild, but that the larger and more powerful a business to a region, the more power the union has against it. This would be to avoid the last example you cited.
Edit: Lest I draw the ire of mods, I am tired of getting downvoted for a good faith discussion relevant to the linked article. If you have a problem with a statement, please reply constructively.
That and government sector unions. Those things are toxic because the unions end up supporting providing political support for the people they're employed by i.e. that's like me and my co-workers voting on how much we'll be paid.
You mean like every C-level manager at every corporation in the world?
AFAIK it is the other way. Closed-shop may be a result of contract freedom between a powerful union and a company (and then it is enforced as any other contract). While union laws often limits content of union contracts, e.g. forbids closed-shop. That is why you do not see closed-shop in Europe (with generally stronger union laws).
Why can't industry workers do the same? Once software has eaten the world, what's to stop software people monetizing the employment market they have captured?
thats bad?
Competition is good, and we always want a choice of where to shop. I imagine the same goes for unions. Is there anti-monopoly and antitrust law around unions? E.g. protecting consumers against there being only one union for widget makers. I would guess that unions would be less controversial with a healthy ecosystem of competition on both the employer and labor sides, but I don't know much about unions.
This is every dismissive comment about unions on HN ever, right here.
The results we’ve seen when such workers realise this (see Googlers more-or-less ept attempts to change management policy) is the test for this. A strong union would stand them in much better stead.
> Isn’t that just smart? Why would I, the hypothetical investor risking my money on a venture, tie that money to a specific employee? That’s putting all of your eggs in one basket.
Similarly, why would as a hypothetical employee work without the protection of a union?
> 1) Payscale -- a professional is in a better position to have a substantial emergency fund, to get through a sudden layoff.
It would be higher yet with unions.
> 2) Demand -- Some professional skills are also in high demand, which makes changing employers easier.
Easier, yes, but not easy.
> 3) Upward and lateral mobility -- In a union shop, mobility is often rigidly defined by seniority, whereas in many professional services, the employee can be more in control of their career. Contrast this to something like the airline pilots union, where a pilot has to start over as a rookey if they change airlines. When I started my last job, I was able to negotiate more weeks PTO because of my years of experience in the field.
Yes except in tech you are an old man by 40, so yes enjoy your 5-year senior developer status... And enjoy your retirement at 40. It's a mythology that you are better off in tech because of the lack of unions because of the super high salaries, etc., which are only to be found in a small segment of the industry.
> even in a company that genuinely does try to be the best in digital media, things can slip through the cracks, and a bad manager can make a world of difference. I had always gotten along very well with my bosses at Vox, but that could change in one corporate reshuffling. I also started to worry about the future: What if, in a very volatile journalism industry, I’m laid off, or Vox is sold off to another company? Who’s to say the next owners would be as good as the current ones?
Consider that Hollywood is unionised even though the pay differential between an extra and a star is far greater than in tech. They can make it work, why can’t we?
At least the author sets the hyperbolic tone up front.